Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries
Forest Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petitions for extension of compliance date and Decision and Order granting petitions.
This document announces receipt by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of 29 petitions from 27 manufacturers seeking a 180-day extension of the compliance date related to recent amendments to the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers to address the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of those products. The petitioners demonstrated that meeting the specified compliance date would impose an undue hardship. Accordingly, today's Decision and Order grants these petitions to extend the compliance date by the requested 180 days.
This Decision and Order is effective March 31, 2011. For representation purposes, petitioners must comply with all applicable provisions of the amended DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers starting on October 15, 2011.
Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9611. E-mail:
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail:
For information on how to access the docket or to view hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail:
Title III, Part B
Pursuant to the amendments to EPCA contained in section 310(3) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010 must address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts an energy conservation standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, if feasible, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) Because the current energy conservation standard rulemaking for residential furnaces will be completed after July 1, 2010, DOE conducted a test procedure rulemaking for these products and published a final rule in the
The statute mandates that 180 days after an amended or new test procedure is prescribed, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may make any representation about a product with respect to energy use or efficiency unless that product has been tested in accordance with such amended or new test procedure and the representation fairly discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) However, if a petition is submitted at least 60 days prior to the end of the initial 180-day period, the Secretary may extend the 180-day period by up to an additional 180 days (but in no event for more than 180 days)
Between February 14, 2011 and February 17, 2011, DOE received 29 petitions from 27 manufacturers
E
Additionally, all petitioners made the point that the amended DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers contains provisions for measuring standby mode and off mode energy consumption that reference the first edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” but that a draft second edition of that standard was issued on October 29, 2010, for a final approval vote. (DOE notes that IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) has been issued by the IEC with a final publication date of January 27, 2011.) According to the petitioners, granting the requested extension of the compliance date would allow DOE to update the relevant references in its test procedure, thereby ensuring that furnace and boiler manufacturers are not subject to procedures with obsolete references.
Fourteen petitioners from 13 companies also expressed concern about the effects of the amended test procedure on the “e” descriptor. While not an official DOE descriptor, “e” is used by utility incentive programs and certain Federal agencies to identify electrically-efficient furnaces. The value for this descriptor is dependent on E
Through today's notice, DOE announces receipt of petitions requesting a 180-day extension of the April 18, 2011 compliance date in the October 2010 furnace and boiler test procedure final rule from the following 27 companies: (1) Adams Manufacturing Company; (2) Allied Air Enterprises; (3) Bard Manufacturing Co. Inc.; (4) Boyertown Furnace; (5) Carrier Corporation; (6) Crown Boiler; (7) De Dietrich Boilers; (8) ECR International Inc.; (9) Goodman Manufacturing Company; (10) HTP Inc.; (11) Johnson Controls Inc.; (12) Laars Heating Systems Company; (13) Lennox International Inc.; (14) Lochinvar; (15) Newmac Furnace Company; (16) New Yorker Residential Heating Boilers; (17) Nordyne; (18) NY Thermal Inc.; (19) Peerless Boilers Heat LLC; (20) Raypak Inc.; (21) Rheem Manufacturing Company; (22) Slant/Fin; (23) Thermo
The intent of the amended test procedure was to require manufacturers to test for standby mode and off mode power at this time only if they intended to publicize such information, and for the above-stated reasons regarding the volume of and limited time available for testing, DOE agrees that requiring all basic models to be retested before April 18, 2011, would place an undue burden upon the petitioners. Likewise, DOE does not believe that it would be appropriate to prevent the dissemination of representations regarding auxiliary electrical energy consumption of residential furnaces and boilers, because consumers may find such information beneficial. Furthermore, DOE agrees that a 180-day extension would not be expected to harm consumers or undermine the purpose of the final rule. For these reasons, and given that the petitioners fulfilled their obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3), DOE hereby issues this Decision and Order which grants the 27 petitioners above an extension of 180 days for compliance with the amended provisions of the furnaces and boilers test procedure final rule that was published in the
DOE notes that this extension does not release petitioners from the certification requirements set forth in 10 CFR 430.62.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:
Service experience has shown that a case of FADEC channel B manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor hose permeability is not always recognized as fault by the FADEC. The MAP value measured by the sensor may be lower than the actual pressure value in the engine manifold, and limits the amount of fuel injected into the combustion chamber and thus the available power of the engine. A change in FADEC software version 2.91 will change the logic in failure detection and in switching to channel B (no automatic switch to channel B if MAP difference between channel A and B is detected and lower MAP is at channel B).
In addition, previous software versions allow—under certain conditions and on DA 42 aircraft only—the initiation of a FADEC self test during flight that causes an engine in-flight shutdown.
This AD becomes effective May 5, 2011.
The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
Service experience has shown that a case of FADEC channel B manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor hose permeability is not always recognized as fault by the FADEC. The MAP value measured by the sensor may be lower than the actual pressure value in the engine manifold, and limits the amount of fuel injected into the combustion chamber and thus the available power of the engine. A change in FADEC software version 2.91 will change the logic in failure detection and in switching to channel B (no automatic switch to channel B if MAP difference between channel A and B is detected and lower MAP is at channel B).
In addition, previous software versions allow—under certain conditions and on DA 42 aircraft only—the initiation of a FADEC self test during flight that causes an engine in-flight shutdown.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.
We updated the revision levels to the two referenced Thielert Operation & Maintenance Manuals, and corrected a manual number reference error in paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will affect about 112 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.5 work-hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. There are no required parts cost. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $4,760.
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
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 5, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH models TAE 125–01, TAE 125–02–99, and TAE 125–02–114 reciprocating engines installed in, but not limited to, Cessna 172 and (Reims-built) F172 series (European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) STC No. EASA.A.S.01527); Piper PA–28 series (EASA STC No. EASA.A.S. 01632); APEX (Robin) DR 400 series (EASA STC No. A.S.01380); and Diamond Aircraft Industries Models DA 40, DA 42, and DA 42M NG airplanes.
(d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown or power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.
(e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within 110 flight hours after the effective date of the AD or during next maintenance, whichever occurs first, install full-authority digital electronic control (FADEC) software version 2.91.
(2) Guidance on FADEC software installation can be found in the following:
(i) For TAE 125–01 engines, Operation & Maintenance Manual OM–02–01, Version 3, Revision 15.
(ii) For TAE 125–02–99 and TAE 125–02–114 engines, Operation & Maintenance Manual OM–02–02, Version 2, Revision 1.
(f) Once FADEC software version 2.91 is installed, do not install any earlier version of FADEC software.
(g) EASA AD 2010–0137 permits installation of earlier FADEC software versions, once version 2.91 is installed. This AD does not.
(h) EASA AD 2010–0137 requires compliance within 110 flight hours after the effective date of the AD or during next maintenance, whichever occurs first, but no later than 6 months after the effective date of the AD. This AD requires compliance within 110 flight hours after the effective date of the AD or during next maintenance, whichever occurs first.
(i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(j) Refer to EASA AD 2010–0137, dated June 30, 2010, for related information. Contact Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D–09350, Lichtenstein, Germany,
(k) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
(l) None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
Investigation of a recent high altitude loss of cabin pressurization on a BD–100–1A10 aircraft determined that it was caused by a partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, in conjunction with a dormant failure/leakage of the safety valve manometric capsule. The blockage, caused by accumulation of lint/dust on the grid of the port plug, did not allow sufficient airflow through the cabin pressure-sensing port to compensate for the rate of leakage from the manometric capsule, resulting in the opening of the safety valve. It was also determined that failure of the manometric capsule alone would not result in the opening of the safety valve.
The unsafe condition is possible loss of cabin pressure caused by the opening of the safety valve. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective May 5, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 1, 2010 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–7318; fax (516) 794–5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
Investigation of a recent high altitude loss of cabin pressurization on a BD–100–1A10 aircraft determined that it was caused by a partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, in conjunction with a dormant failure/leakage of the safety valve manometric capsule. The blockage, caused by accumulation of lint/dust on the grid of the port plug, did not allow sufficient airflow through the cabin pressure-sensing port to compensate for the rate of leakage from the manometric capsule, resulting in the opening of the safety valve. It was also determined that failure of the manometric capsule alone would not result in the opening of the safety valve.
This directive mandates a revision of the maintenance schedule, the [repetitive] cleaning of the safety valves, the removal of material from the area surrounding the safety valves and the modification of the safety valves with a gridless cabin pressure-sensing port plug.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect about 67 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2010–10–18 and retained in this AD take about 9 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $765 per product.
We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $5,695, 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 AD will not have federalism implications under
(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),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 5, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2010–10–18, Amendment 39–16297.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD–100–1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 20001 through 20274 inclusive, certificated in any category.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21: Air conditioning.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Investigation of a recent high altitude loss of cabin pressurization on a BD–100–1A10 aircraft determined that it was caused by a partial blockage of a safety valve cabin pressure-sensing port, in conjunction with a dormant failure/leakage of the safety valve manometric capsule. The blockage, caused by accumulation of lint/dust on the grid of the port plug, did not allow sufficient airflow through the cabin pressure-sensing port to compensate for the rate of leakage from the manometric capsule, resulting in the opening of the safety valve. It was also determined that failure of the manometric capsule alone would not result in the opening of the safety valve.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) For all airplanes: Within 30 days after June 1, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010–10–18, Amendment 39–16297) revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Tasks 21–31–09–101 and 21–31–09–102 in the Bombardier Temporary Revision (TR) 5–2–53, dated October 1, 2009, to Section 5–10–40, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” in Part 2 of Chapter 5 of Bombardier Challenger 300 BD–100 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
(1) For the new tasks identified in Bombardier TR 5–2–53, dated October 1, 2009: For airplanes identified in the “Phase-in” section of Bombardier TR 5–2–53, dated October 1, 2009, the initial compliance with the new tasks must be carried out in accordance with the phase-in schedule detailed in Bombardier TR 5–2–53, dated October 1, 2009, except where that TR specifies a compliance time from the date of the TR, this AD requires compliance within the specified time after June 1, 2010. Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, no alternative to the task intervals may be used.
(2) When information in Bombardier TR 5–2–53, dated October 1, 2009, has been included in the general revisions of the applicable Airworthiness Limitations section, that TR may be removed from that Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(h) For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010, do a detailed visual inspection of the safety valves and surrounding areas for discrepant material (
(1) If any discrepant material is found during the detailed visual inspection, before further flight, remove the discrepant material, clean the surfaces of the valves, and secure the insulation, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 100–25–14, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20124, 20125, 20128, 20134, 20139, 20143, 20146, 20148 to 20173 inclusive, 20176, and 20177); or Bombardier Service Bulletin 100–25–21, dated June 30, 2008 (for airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20123 inclusive, 20126, 20127, 20129 to 20133 inclusive, 20135 to 20138 inclusive, 20140 to 20142 inclusive, 20144, 20145, and 20147).
(2) If contamination (
(i) If no RTV is found, clean the plug of the sensing port.
(ii) If any RTV is found, install a new safety valve.
(i) For airplanes having S/Ns 20174, 20175, 20178 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256 and 20259: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010, clean the cabin pressure-sensing port plug in both safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.B., “Part A—Modification—Cleaning,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100–21–08, dated June 18, 2009.
(j) For airplanes having S/Ns 20003 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256, and 20259: Within 50 flight hours after June 1, 2010, clean the cabin pressure-sensing port plug in both safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.B., “Part A—Modification—Cleaning,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100–21–08, dated June 18, 2009. Repeat the cleaning thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight hours until the actions specified by paragraph (k) of this AD are completed.
(k) For airplanes, having S/Ns 20003 through 20189 inclusive, 20191 through 20228 inclusive, 20230 through 20232 inclusive, 20235, 20237, 20238, 20241, 20244, 20247, 20249 through 20251 inclusive, 20254, 20256, and 20259: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the cabin pressure-sensing port plug having part number (P/N) 2844–060 in both safety valves with a new gridless plug having P/N 2844–19 and re-identify the safety valves, in accordance with Paragraph 2.C., “Part B—Modification—Replacement,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin A100–21–08, dated June 18, 2009. Doing the actions in paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the repetitive cleanings required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF–2010–06, dated February 24, 2010; and the service information specified in table 1 of this AD; as applicable; for related information.
(n) You must use the applicable service information contained in table 2 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of this service information on June 1, 2010 (75 FR 27406, May 17, 2010).
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Final regulations.
This document contains final regulations under section 3042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) relating to the enrollment of actuaries. These regulations update the eligibility requirements for performing actuarial services for ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans, including the continuing professional education requirements, and the standards for performing such actuarial services. These regulations will affect employee pension benefit plans and the actuaries providing actuarial services to those plans.
Patrick McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, at (202) 622–8229 (not a toll-free number).
The collections of information contained in these final regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545–0951.
The collections of information in the regulations are in sections 901.1(i), 901.1(j), 901.10, 901.11(d), 901.11(f)(2)(D), 901.11(f)(2)(G) and (H), 901.11(f)(3)(ii), 901.11(g)(3), 901.11(j)(1), 901.11(j)(2), 901.11(k), 901.11(l)(4)(v), 901.12(e), and 901.54. These collections of information are required in order for the Joint Board to carry out its function under section 3042 of ERISA, which provides that the Joint Board shall, by regulations, establish reasonable standards and qualifications for persons performing actuarial services with respect to plans subject to ERISA and, upon application by any individual, shall enroll such individual if the Joint Board finds that such individual satisfies such standards and qualifications, and also provides that the Joint Board may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend or terminate the enrollment of an individual who fails to discharge his duties under ERISA or who does not satisfy the requirements for enrollment.
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.
This document contains final regulations under section 3042 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 829), Public Law 93–406 (ERISA). Section 3042 of ERISA provides that the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) shall, by regulations, establish reasonable standards and qualifications for persons performing actuarial services with respect to plans subject to ERISA and, upon application by any individual, shall enroll such individual if the Joint Board finds that such individual satisfies such standards and qualifications. Section 3042 also provides that the Joint Board may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend or terminate the enrollment of an individual who fails to discharge his duties under ERISA or who does not satisfy the requirements for enrollment.
Consistent with section 3042, the Joint Board has promulgated regulations at 20 CFR part 901, addressing eligibility for enrollment, requirements for continuing professional education of enrolled actuaries, professional standards for performance of actuarial services under ERISA, bases for disciplinary actions and the procedures to be followed in taking those actions. The Joint Board last issued comprehensive amendments to the regulations regarding section 3042 in 1988 (53 FR 34484). In anticipation of amending the Joint Board regulations, the Joint Board issued a Request for Information (RFI) which was published in the
These regulations finalize the rules proposed in REG–159704–03 (published September 21, 2009), with certain modifications highlighted in this preamble.
These regulations provide that an individual applying to be an enrolled actuary must fulfill (1) an experience requirement, (2) a basic actuarial knowledge requirement, and (3) a pension actuarial knowledge requirement. All applicants for enrollment must agree to comply with these regulations and with any other guidance as required by the Joint Board.
These regulations provide two alternative ways of satisfying the experience requirement. Within the 10-year period immediately preceding the date of the application, the applicant must have completed either (1) at least 36 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience, or (2) at least 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience if the applicant has a total of 60 months of certified responsible actuarial experience.
These regulations retain the definitions of responsible actuarial experience and responsible pension actuarial experience. Responsible actuarial experience means actuarial experience (1) involving participation in making determinations that the methods and assumptions adopted in the procedures followed in actuarial services are appropriate in the light of all pertinent circumstances, and (2) demonstrating a thorough understanding of the principles and alternatives involved in such actuarial services. Responsible pension actuarial experience means responsible actuarial experience involving valuations of the liabilities of pension plans, wherein the performance of such valuations requires the application of principles of life contingencies and compound interest in the determination, under one or more standard actuarial cost methods, of such of the following as may be appropriate in the particular case: (1) Normal cost; (2) accrued liability; (3) payment required to amortize a liability or other amount over a period of time; and (4) actuarial gain or loss.
These regulations define
One commenter requested greater flexibility in satisfying the experience requirements for enrollment based on experience in more specialized pension areas of practice. These regulations retain the requirement that enrolled actuaries have certified responsible pension actuarial experience as previously defined because the Joint Board believes that a broad base of pension knowledge is necessary to recognize issues that may arise even in a specialized area of practice. Nonetheless, the Joint Board recognizes that the broad base of experience needed to become an enrolled actuary does not qualify an enrolled actuary to do every type of work for which an enrolled actuary is required.
In response to the proposed regulation, one commenter suggested that, given the pace of change and for consistency with the experience requirement for return from inactive status, all of an applicant's responsible pension experience should be completed within 5 years preceding enrollment (rather than 10 years). The commenter pointed out that for reenrollment under the proposed regulations, an inactive enrolled actuary would need more recent experience. These regulations retain the rule in the current regulations that requires the experience for initial enrollment to have been completed within the previous 10 years, and, as explained in more detail in section IV of this preamble (Inactive Enrolled Actuaries), they retain the requirements in the proposed regulations for an enrolled actuary who wishes to return to active status from inactive status that depends on how long the actuary has been on the inactive roster. The difference in the timing of the required experience for initial enrollment and for returning from inactive status reflects the different purposes served by the two requirements. The Joint Board requires enrolled actuaries who let their enrollment lapse into inactive status to demonstrate their return to active practice with more recent experience. It can be expected that, in general, such actuaries are farther along in their careers and are more likely to quickly build up, or return to, an active independent practice. For such actuaries, the Joint Board believes that recent pension experience is paramount. In contrast, it can be expected that newly enrolled actuaries will take longer to develop active independent practices. For these actuaries, the Joint Board believes that a longer look-back period is reasonable.
In response to the proposed regulations, one commenter suggested that, in order to make sure that an actuary does not lose the opportunity to get credit for responsible actuarial and responsible pension actuarial experience, enrolled actuaries should be required to certify the experience of potential candidates annually and when the potential candidate changes supervisor or employer. The Joint Board feels it is not necessary to add this additional paperwork requirement for enrolled actuaries who supervise and train actuaries who are not yet enrolled. The Joint Board will address on a case-by-case basis situations involving the inability of the Executive Director to obtain certification of an applicant's experience.
These regulations do not amend the definition of basic actuarial knowledge required for initial enrollment. Basic actuarial knowledge may be obtained in one of three ways—successful completion of a Joint Board basic examination; successful completion of one or more proctored examinations which are given by an actuarial organization and which the Joint Board has determined cover substantially the same subject areas, have at least comparable levels of difficulty, and require at least the same competence as the Joint Board basic examination; or receipt of a bachelor's or higher degree in either actuarial mathematics or another area which include at least as many semester hours or quarter hours as required by the Joint Board in mathematics, statistics, actuarial mathematics, and other areas determined by the Joint Board.
These regulations provide that an applicant may demonstrate pension actuarial knowledge through successful completion, within the 10-year period immediately preceding the date of the application for enrollment, of either the Joint Board pension examination (currently administered as the EA–2A and EA–2B), or an approved pension examination, or examinations, given by an actuarial organization which the Joint Board has determined cover substantially the same subject areas, have at least comparable levels of difficulty, and require at least the same competence as the Joint Board pension examination. For this purpose, these regulations provide that the date of successful completion of an examination is generally the date a candidate sits for the examination, provided that the candidate receives a passing grade on that examination. However, an applicant who sat for a given examination prior to the effective date of these regulations will be deemed to have sat for such examination on the effective date.
These regulations do not change the requirement that an enrolled actuary seeking to renew his or her enrollment must file an application for renewal of enrollment between October 1, 2010 and March 1, 2011, and between October 1 and March 1 of every third year thereafter. An enrolled actuary seeking renewal must complete the required continuing professional education hours prior to submitting an application for renewal, but in no event later than the December 31 immediately preceding the March 1 due date for the application for renewal. These regulations continue to provide that the effective date for renewal of enrollment for individuals who are currently enrolled (and in active status) and who file complete renewal applications by the March 1 due date shall be the April 1 immediately following the March 1 due date. The effective date of renewal of enrollment for an individual who files a complete renewal application after the March 1 due date is the later of the April 1 immediately following the due date of application and the date of the notice of renewal.
These regulations retain the general requirement that an enrolled actuary earn 36 hours of continuing professional education during each full enrollment cycle. These regulations define the
Several commenters suggested that the time period for earning continuing professional education credit should extend beyond the end of the enrollment cycle. The Joint Board decided that it is reasonable to expect enrolled actuaries to make time for satisfying their continuing professional education requirement during the
These regulations make no change to the rule that newly enrolled actuaries who are initially enrolled during the first year of an enrollment cycle must complete 24 hours of continuing professional education hours in the enrollment cycle during which they are enrolled. Newly enrolled actuaries who are initially enrolled during the second year of an enrollment cycle must complete 12 hours of continuing professional education hours in the enrollment cycle during which they are enrolled. Newly enrolled actuaries who are initially enrolled during the last year of an enrollment cycle are exempt from the continuing education requirements until the next enrollment cycle, but must file a timely application for renewal.
These regulations require at least 18 hours of continuing professional education in core subject matter during the enrollment cycle that ends December 31, 2010, for all enrolled actuaries enrolled during the entire cycle. Thereafter, for actuaries who have already been enrolled for at least one full enrollment cycle before the start of a new enrollment cycle, these regulations provide that only 12 of the 36 hours of required continuing professional education during the new enrollment cycle must consist of core subject matter.
These regulations provide that the required continuing professional education hours must be earned after January 1 of the year the enrolled actuary becomes enrolled. Half of the required hours for newly enrolled actuaries must be comprised of core subject matter.
The Joint Board received comments both in favor of and against the proposed two-tiered requirement that 18 hours of continuing professional education be core subject matter for enrolled actuaries during their first full enrollment cycle but only 12 hours be core subject matter for each subsequent enrollment cycle. In light of the complexity and rapid changes in core subject matter, the Joint Board feels that some ongoing education in core subject matter is always necessary. On the other hand, the Joint Board wishes to encourage enrolled actuaries at every level of experience to satisfy a portion of their continuing professional education requirement through participation in non-core programs that are designed to enhance their knowledge in matters related to the performance of pension actuarial services. The Joint Board feels that the two-tiered approach is the best way to achieve that result. Accordingly, these regulations adopt the two-tiered requirement as proposed.
For each full enrollment cycle beginning after December 31, 2010, these regulations require at least 2 of the required core hours of continuing professional education to relate to ethical standards. Some commenters suggested either not treating continuing professional education on ethical standards as core subject matter or increasing the number of hours required to consist of core subject matter by 2 hours to account for the ethics requirement. The Joint Board feels that fidelity to the high ethical standards of practice is as essential for enrolled actuaries as is knowledge of the technical rules studied in other core areas. Ethics have always been considered to be core subject matter, and an enrolled actuary who wishes to increase the number of hours spent studying the core technical rules may always undertake more than the minimum number of core hours. Accordingly, the Joint Board feels that including ethical standards as part of the required hours of core subject matter is appropriate.
In response to comments, these regulations clarify that when core subject matter hours are required (including when an individual seeks to return to active status from inactive status), an individual must complete a minimum of two hours of continuing professional education credit relating to ethical standards, regardless of the total number of core hours required.
The regulations require an enrolled actuary to retain certain records evidencing completion of continuing professional education for three years after the end of the enrollment cycle for which the enrolled actuary claims the credit. To receive credit based on participation in a qualifying program, the regulations require the enrolled actuary to retain the certificate of completion or certificate of instruction, as applicable. To receive credit for publications, these regulations require the enrolled actuary to retain the name of the publisher, the title and author of the publication, a copy of the publication, the date of publication, the total credit hours earned, and the total core and non-core credit hours earned. To receive credit for service on a Joint Board advisory committee, for preparation of Joint Board examinations, for passing examinations sponsored by professional organizations or societies, or for passing the Joint Board pension examination, these regulations require the enrolled actuary to retain sufficient documentation to establish completion of such hours.
All continuing professional education must be in either core or non-core subject matter. The Joint Board received a number of comments requesting expansion and clarification of the content that would be classified as core or non-core credit. These regulations adopt the same definition of core and non-core continuing professional education material as proposed. The Joint Board recognizes that more specific rules proscribing the required content could provide greater certainty for qualifying sponsors and enrolled actuaries regarding the designation of credits as core and non-core. However, given the frequent changes in pension law, the impact of new court decisions, and other changing factors that affect an enrolled actuary's practice, it is important to keep the definition of the content requirement somewhat flexible. The Joint Board relies on the integrity and judgment of the qualifying sponsors to provide appropriate material and to appropriately categorize the material as core or non-core.
Similarly, a number of commenters requested a more specific definition of ethical standards for purposes of meeting the ethics requirement of the continuing education requirement. Although the Joint Board has not amended the regulation, it notes that courses that include discussion of actuarial codes of conduct, actuarial responsibilities and any actions discussed in section 901.20 of the regulations would comply with this requirement.
These regulations redefine core subject matter as program content and knowledge that is integral and necessary to the satisfactory performance of pension actuarial services and actuarial certification under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. Such core subject matter includes the
These regulations retain the definition of non-core subject matter as program content designed to enhance the knowledge of an enrolled actuary in matters related to the performance of pension actuarial services. These regulations provide that examples of non-core subject matter include economics, computer programming, pension accounting, investment and finance, risk theory, communication skills, and business and general tax law.
These regulations do not change the requirement that a program used to earn continuing professional education credit must be a qualifying program. These regulations modify the definition of qualifying program to be a course of learning that—(A) Is conducted by a qualifying sponsor who identifies the program as a qualifying program; (B) is developed by individual(s) qualified in the subject matter; (C) covers current subject matter; (D) includes written outlines or textbooks; (E) is taught by instructors, discussion leaders, and speakers qualified with respect to the course content; (F) includes means for evaluation by the Joint Board of technical content and presentation; (G) provides a certificate of completion to those who have successfully completed the program; and (H) provides a certificate of instruction to those who have served as instructors, discussion leaders, or speakers.
These regulations provide that qualifying sponsors are sponsors recognized as such by the Executive Director and whose programs offer opportunities for continuing professional education in subject matter within the scope of the continuing professional education requirement. In response to comments, these regulations have been changed so that they do not prohibit a sole proprietor from being a qualifying sponsor. These regulations provide that those seeking recognition as a qualifying sponsor must file a request with the Executive Director and must provide all information deemed necessary for approval by the Executive Director, including information to establish that all programs identified as qualifying programs by the qualifying sponsor will satisfy the requirements for qualifying programs. These regulations provide that recognition as a qualifying sponsor by the Executive Director shall be effective when approved unless the Executive Director provides that it shall be effective on a different date, and shall terminate at the end of the sponsor enrollment cycle. The sponsor enrollment cycles are three-year periods that begin one-year later than the enrollment cycles, starting with the sponsor enrollment cycle beginning on January 1, 2012. For qualifying sponsors approved on or after January 1, 2008, and before January 1, 2012, the applicable sponsor enrollment cycle will end December 31, 2011.
These regulations provide that a program's qualifying sponsor shall furnish each individual who successfully completed the qualifying program with a certificate listing the name of the participant, the name of the qualifying sponsor, the title, location, and speaker(s) of each session, the date(s) of participation, the total credit hours earned, how many of those hours consisted of core and non-core subject matter, how many of those hours relate to ethics, and how many of the hours were earned for a formal program with respect to the participant. In response to comments, these regulations clarify that it is only the qualifying sponsor of a program that may issue a certificate of participation.
These regulations provide that qualifying sponsors shall provide each instructor, discussion leader, or speaker with a certificate of instruction that lists the name of the instructor, discussion leader, or speaker, the name of the qualifying sponsor, the title and location of each session at which the individual was an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker, the date(s) of the program, the total credit hours earned, how many of those hours consisted of core and non-core subject matter, how many of those hours relate to ethics, and whether the program is a formal program with respect to the instructor.
The proposed regulations would have defined separate types of qualifying programs for formal programs, correspondence and individual study programs, and teleconferencing programs. These regulations do not segregate qualifying programs into these types. Instead, these regulations provide that certain qualifying programs qualify as formal programs. Each type of program that would have been separately defined under the proposed regulations may still satisfy the requirements of a qualifying program.
In response to comments, the Joint Board notes that the qualifying sponsor must take reasonable steps to verify participation. The nature of the program will affect the means by which the qualifying sponsor verifies participation. Under this approach, a qualifying program that is either a teleconference or a program attended in person may be a formal program but the manner in which the qualifying sponsor verifies participation will be different depending on the manner of participation. In contrast, a correspondence or individual study program would never be a formal program but could nonetheless be a qualifying program if the qualifying sponsor verifies participation (for example, with a written examination).
In response to comments, these regulations clarify that a qualifying sponsor must maintain records to verify that each program it sponsors is a qualifying program, including the certificates of completion, certificates of instruction, and outlines and course material. In the case of programs with more than one session, the qualifying sponsor must keep records to verify which session(s) each participant completed. These regulations clarify that all of these records are required to be maintained for six years after the end of the sponsor enrollment cycle in which the program was held.
Several commenters asked for clarification on the ability to use emerging technologies for record retention and transmission. The regulations do not specify the format in which records must be maintained or provided but merely require that copies be provided and produced upon request. Accordingly, records may be maintained electronically so long as a copy can be produced upon request.
These regulations require at least one-third of the required hours to consist of participation in a formal program. In response to comments on the proposed regulations, these regulations expand the definition of a formal program to take into account modern technologies that permit participation and interaction among participants who are in different locations.
Under these regulations, whether a program qualifies as a formal program is
Under these regulations, a qualifying program is a formal program with respect to the instructor only if the instructor is in the physical presence of at least three other individuals engaged in substantive pension service.
These regulations provide six ways to satisfy the continuing professional education requirement other than through participation in a qualifying program. First, up to half of the required hours may be satisfied by serving as an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker at a qualifying program. For this purpose the instructor, discussion leader, or speaker is credited with 4 hours of continuing professional education credit for each 50 minutes completed during a qualifying program. In response to a comment, these regulations clarify that if the program is a formal program with respect to the instructor, only the time spent during the actual program is counted toward satisfaction of the formal program requirement. The nature of the subject matter will determine whether the credit hours consist of core or non-core subject matter. These regulations expressly provide that panelists, moderators, and others who are not required to prepare substantive subject matter for their portion of the program are not entitled to credit as an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker, but they may qualify for participation in the program.
Second, up to 25 percent of the required hours may be awarded to the author, co-author, or a person listed as a major contributor for each hour spent on the creation of peer-reviewed material for publication or distribution on matters directly related to core or non-core subject matter. To qualify, the material must be available on reasonable terms for acquisition and use by all enrolled actuaries.
If the material is re-published or re-distributed, credit will be awarded only for time spent revising a substantial portion of the material; for example, to reflect changes in law or practices relative to the performance of pension actuarial services.
Third, these regulations permit the Joint Board to award continuing professional education credit for service on (any of) its advisory committee(s), to the extent that the Joint Board considers awarding such credit is warranted by the service rendered. This provision recognizes the fact that the work done by the members of the advisory committee involves detailed review of materials that constitute core subject matter.
Fourth, these regulations permit the Joint Board to award education credit for participation in drafting questions for use on Joint Board examinations or in pretesting its examinations, to the extent that the Joint Board considers awarding such credit appropriate. These regulations limit the education credit for preparation of Joint Board examinations to 50 percent of the continuing professional education requirement for the applicable enrollment cycle.
One commenter suggested that the regulations should specify the number of continuing professional education credits that may be granted for service on an Advisory Committee to the Joint Board and other committees involved in the preparation of enrollment examinations, and to eliminate the 50 percent limit on continuing professional education requirements that can be satisfied by service on an examination writing committee. The regulations retain the Joint Board's authority to determine how many credits are granted for service rendered.
In the Board's experience, most actuaries who serve on an examination writing committee tend to work on only one of the examinations; the Board believes that the scope of the material covered on a given examination is not broad enough for service on a writing committee to count toward more than 50% of the continuing professional education requirements for a given enrollment cycle. Therefore, although the Board appreciatively acknowledges the substantial time and effort expended by members of the writing committees, the final regulations retain the 50% limit.
The commenter also suggested that service on an Advisory Committee to the Joint Board throughout an entire enrollment cycle fulfill all the continuing professional education requirements for that cycle, including the requirement to earn credits related to ethical standards. However, the Board does not believe that the exam syllabus or other work typically done by an Advisory Committee includes enough material directly related to ethical standards to fulfill the requirement for this type of credit. Therefore, the Board does not anticipate that credits related to ethical standards would be granted on the basis of service on an Advisory Committee.
Fifth, these regulations provide that individuals may earn continuing professional education credit for achieving a passing grade on proctored examinations sponsored by a professional organization or society recognized by the Joint Board. Separate provisions, described in the next paragraph, apply to the Joint Board's examinations. These regulations further provide that such credit is limited to the number of hours scheduled for the examination that are attributable to content that qualifies as either core or non-core subject matter and that, regardless of the nature of the content, none of the credit counts toward the core credit requirement. All of an enrolled actuary's non-core credit requirement may be satisfied with this type of credit.
Sixth, these regulations provide that enrolled actuaries who are enrolled prior to the beginning of an enrollment cycle may satisfy the entire continuing professional education requirement for the enrollment cycle by both (1) achieving a passing score on the Joint Board pension examination administered during the enrollment cycle and (2) completing a minimum of 12 hours of continuing professional education through participation in formal programs during the enrollment cycle.
These regulations permit the Executive Director to waive all or part of an enrolled actuary's continuing professional education requirement. An enrolled actuary seeking such a waiver must submit a request for a waiver to the Executive Director. This request must contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the enrolled actuary made every effort throughout the
These regulations provide that the Executive Director shall maintain a roster of individuals who are in inactive status, in addition to rosters of individuals who are duly enrolled and those whose enrollment has been suspended or terminated. These regulations also give the Executive Director explicit permission to publish any or all of the rosters, including display on the Joint Board's Web site, to the extent permitted by law.
These regulations extend the period of time that an individual may remain on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries from three years to up to three enrollment cycles. Under these regulations, a person who is on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries for three enrollment cycles without returning to active status must satisfy the requirements for initial enrollment to become an active enrolled actuary. For this purpose, these regulations provide a transition rule that treats enrolled actuaries who are inactive or retired as of April 1, 2010 as if they were placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries on that date.
To remain on the roster of active enrolled actuaries, an enrolled actuary must submit a timely application for renewal showing satisfaction of the requirements for reenrollment, including completion of the required continuing professional education hours within the appropriate time frame.
The Executive Director will automatically move enrolled actuaries who do not submit a timely application for reenrollment and enrolled actuaries who submit an application that on its face does not show information sufficient to satisfy the requirements for renewal (for example, an application that does not show sufficient continuing professional education credits). Such enrolled actuaries will be placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries as of April 1 following the March 1 due date for the application. Enrolled actuaries who submit an application that on its face does not show information sufficient to satisfy the requirements for renewal will not be entitled to a refund of the application fee. Enrolled actuaries who submit an application that on its face does not show information sufficient to satisfy the requirements for renewal will be considered inactive as of the April 1 immediately following the March 1 due date for the application even if the Executive Director does not become aware of the insufficiency of the application until after April 1.
In addition, the Executive Director may audit renewal applications to verify the information submitted. If the Executive Director determines that the information on the application is inaccurate, the Executive Director will move the enrolled actuary to the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries only after notifying the enrolled actuary of the Executive Director's intent to do so and giving the enrolled actuary 60 days to respond. The Executive Director will consider any written response in making a final determination as to eligibility for renewal of enrollment. The Executive Director will notify the enrolled actuary by mail of the final determination as to whether or not to place the enrolled actuary on the inactive roster at that time. If the Executive Director makes a final determination to place an individual on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries, the individual may seek review of the determination from the Joint Board by submitting a request to the Joint Board within 30 days of the notice of final determination.
These regulations provide that while an individual remains on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries, such person may not indicate to others that he or she is an enrolled actuary and is not eligible to perform actuarial services as an enrolled actuary under ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations provide that an individual still on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries who wishes to return to active status may file an application for renewal of enrollment, but the requirements for reenrollment are different depending on whether the applicant is in the first, second, or third enrollment cycle on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries.
These regulations provide that individuals who apply for renewal of enrollment during their first enrollment cycle on the inactive roster must complete 36 hours of continuing professional education between the beginning of the prior enrollment cycle and the date of the application for renewal.
These regulations provide that individuals who apply for renewal of enrollment during their second enrollment cycle on the inactive roster must complete 48 hours of continuing professional education credit plus demonstrate 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience. These regulations provide that the continuing professional education credit must have been earned since the beginning of the applicant's first enrollment cycle on the inactive roster. The qualifying responsible pension actuarial experience must have occurred after the beginning of the applicant's first enrollment cycle on the inactive list.
These regulations provide that individuals who apply for renewal of enrollment during their third enrollment cycle on the inactive roster must complete 60 hours of continuing professional education credit plus demonstrate 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience. For this purpose, these regulations provide that the continuing professional education credit must have been earned since the beginning of the applicant's second enrollment cycle and the qualifying actuarial experience must have occurred after the beginning of the applicant's second enrollment cycle on the inactive list.
Regardless of when the inactive enrolled actuary applies for renewal, these regulations provide that any continuing professional education credit used to qualify for reenrollment may not also be used to satisfy the continuing professional education requirement during the applicant's first enrollment cycle back on the active roster.
These regulations also expand upon the standards of performance of actuarial services. These regulations add a requirement that an enrolled actuary shall perform actuarial services only in accordance with all of the duties and requirements for such persons under applicable law and consistent with relevant generally accepted standards for professional responsibility and ethics.
Several comments were received with respect to the standards of practice provisions that were modeled on the obligations set forth in Circular 230 of all persons practicing before the IRS. The Joint Board believes that the rules in Circular 230 pertaining to due diligence, solicitations, prompt disposition of pending matters, and the return of client records are equally
These final regulations modify the rules regarding conflicts of interest. The Joint Board received several comments on the proposed rule to require that disclosure of conflicts of interest be made in writing to all affected parties and that the affected parties agree in writing to the enrolled actuary performing the services. After consideration of these comments, the Joint Board has determined that it will adopt rules that are similar to the conflict of interest rules that apply to those practicing before the Internal Revenue Service.
Nothing in these final regulations is intended to alter the rules for practice before the Internal Revenue Service under Treasury Department Circular No. 230.
The proposed regulations would have imposed a requirement that, upon learning of another enrolled actuary's material violation of the standards of performance of actuarial services, an enrolled actuary report the violation to the Executive Director. The Joint Board received many comments in response to this proposal. Several commenters suggested the elimination of the proposed reporting requirement. In the alternative, commenters asked that the requirement be significantly modified. Commenters were concerned that the reporting requirement would discourage cooperation and sharing of information among enrolled actuaries and that it would conflict with other rules that require enrolled actuaries not to disclose confidential or privileged information. Commenters also suggested that an enrolled actuary should not be required to report violations that are resolved through discussion with the other enrolled actuary. Finally, commenters asked for a clarification of the term material violation.
In light of the comments received, the Joint Board decided not to include the proposed reporting requirement as part of the standards of performance for enrolled actuaries. Without amendment, the regulations already include a rule that if an officer or employee of the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or a member of the Joint Board has reason to believe that an enrolled actuary has violated any provision of the regulations, or if such person receives information to that effect, he or she may inform the Executive Director. Without amendment, the regulations already provide that others may make such a report to the Executive Director, an officer or employee of the Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or a member of the Joint Board. These regulations amend that provision only to provide that the optional report should be made directly to the Executive Director. Self-policing is an important part of maintaining the high standards of the profession, and the Joint Board encourages enrolled actuaries to report violations of the regulations to the Executive Director. However, in light of the concerns raised by commenters, the Joint Board decided not to change the existing rule except to provide that any report should be made directly only to the Executive Director.
In response to comments, these regulations clarify that the requirement for an enrolled actuary to ensure that the actuarial assumptions are reasonable individually and in combination, and the actuarial cost method and the actuarial method of valuation of assets are appropriate applies unless the actuarial assumptions or methods are mandated by law.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information imposed by these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are presently only about 4000 enrolled actuaries and the changes made by the final regulations will reduce the overall collection of information burden by removing the requirement for participants in continuing education courses to keep course materials. Qualified sponsors of continuing education courses, a few of which are small entities, have a paperwork burden under these regulations that is substantially the same as the pre-existing burden. Therefore, the economic impact of the collection of information requirement will not be significant and the number of small entities affected by the collection of information requirement will not be substantial. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. The notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of these regulations is Michael P. Brewer, IRS
Regulations governing the performance of actuarial services under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Accordingly, 20 CFR part 901 is amended as follows:
These rules are issued under authority of 88 Stat. 1002; 29 U.S.C. 1241, 1242.
(i)
(j)
(k)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(i) All actuaries who are duly enrolled under this part;
(ii) All individuals whose enrollment has been suspended or terminated; and
(iii) All individuals who are in inactive status.
(2)
(d)
(1) Each enrolled actuary must file an application for renewal of enrollment on the prescribed form no earlier than October 1, 2010, and no later than March 1, 2011, and no earlier than October 1 and no later than March 1 of every third year thereafter. If March 1 is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the due date shall be the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday.
(2) The effective date of renewal of enrollment for an individual who files a complete renewal application within the time period described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is the April 1 immediately following the date of application. The effective date of renewal of enrollment for an individual who files a complete renewal application after the due date described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is the later of the April 1 immediately following the due date of application and the date of the notice of renewal.
(3) Forms required for renewal may be obtained from the Executive Director.
(4) A reasonable non-refundable fee may be charged for each application for renewal of enrollment filed.
(e)
(1)
(ii) An individual who received initial enrollment in 2008 must complete 24 hours of continuing professional education by December 31, 2010. An individual who received initial enrollment in 2009 must complete 12 hours of continuing professional education by December 31, 2010. In either case, at least one-half of the applicable hours must consist of core subject matter; the remainder may consist of non-core subject matter. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(1)(ii), credit will be awarded for continuing professional education completed after January 1 of the year in which initial enrollment was received.
(iii) An individual who receives initial enrollment during 2010 is exempt from the continuing professional education requirements during 2010, but must file a timely application for renewal during the time period described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(2)
(ii) * * * For purposes of this paragraph (e)(2)(ii), credit will be awarded for continuing professional education completed after January 1 of the year in which initial enrollment was received.
(iv) For an individual who was initially enrolled before January 1, 2008 (and who has therefore completed at least one full enrollment cycle as of January 1, 2011), at least 12 hours of the 36 hours of continuing professional education required for each enrollment cycle must consist of core subject matter; the remainder may consist of non-core subject matter.
(v) For an individual who was initially enrolled on or after January 1, 2008, at least 18 hours of his or her 36 hours of continuing professional education required for the first full enrollment cycle must consist of core subject matter. Thereafter, for such individuals, for each subsequent enrollment cycle at least 12 hours of the 36 hours must consist of core subject matter. In each instance, the remainder may consist of non-core subject matter.
(vi) When core subject matter hours are required (including when an individual seeks to return to active status from inactive status), an individual must complete a minimum of two hours of continuing professional education credit relating to ethical standards, regardless of the total number of core hours required.
(f)
(i) Core subject matter is program content and knowledge that is integral and necessary to the satisfactory performance of pension actuarial services and actuarial certification under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. Such core subject matter includes the characteristics of actuarial cost methods under ERISA, actuarial assumptions, minimum funding standards, titles I, II, and IV of ERISA, requirements with respect to the valuation of plan assets, requirements for qualification of pension plans, maximum deductible contributions, tax treatment of distributions from qualified pension plans, excise taxes related to the funding of qualified pension plans and standards of performance (including ethical standards) for actuarial services. Core subject matter includes all materials included on the syllabi of any of the pension actuarial examinations offered by the Joint Board during the current enrollment cycle and the enrollment cycle immediately preceding the current enrollment cycle.
(ii) * * * Examples include economics, computer programming, pension accounting, investment and finance, risk theory, communication skills, and business and general tax law.
(iv) The same course of study cannot be used more than once within a given 36-month period to satisfy the continuing professional education requirements of these regulations. A program or session bearing the same or a similar title to a previous one may be used to satisfy the requirements of these regulations if the major content of the program or session differs substantively from the previous one.
(2)
(A) Is conducted by a qualifying sponsor, within the meaning of paragraph (f)(3) of this section, who identifies the program as a qualifying program;
(B) Is developed by individual(s) qualified in the subject matter;
(C) Covers current subject matter;
(D) Includes written outlines or textbooks;
(E) Is taught by instructors, discussion leaders, and speakers qualified with respect to the course content;
(F) Includes means for evaluation by the Joint Board of technical content and presentation;
(G) Provides a certificate of completion, within the meaning of paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section, to each person who successfully completed the program; and
(H) Provides a certificate of instruction, within the meaning of paragraph (f)(3)(v) of this section, to each person who served an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker.
(ii)
(B)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(iv)
(A) The name of the participant.
(B) The name of the qualifying sponsor.
(C) The title, location, and speaker(s) of each session attended.
(D) The dates of the program.
(E) The total credit hours earned, the total core and non-core credit hours earned, and how many of those hours relate to ethics.
(F) Whether or not the program is a formal program with respect to the participant.
(v)
(A) The name of the instructor, discussion leader, or speaker.
(B) The name of the qualifying sponsor.
(C) The title and location of the program.
(D) The dates of the program.
(E) The total credit hours earned and the total core and non-core credit hours earned for the program, and how many of those hours relate to ethics.
(F) Whether or not the program is a formal program with respect to the instructor.
(g)
(2)
(ii) The credit for instruction and preparation may not exceed 50 percent of the continuing professional education requirement for an enrollment cycle.
(iii) Presentation of the same material as an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker more than one time in any 36-month period will not qualify for continuing professional education credit. A program will not be considered to consist of the same material if a substantial portion of the content has been revised to reflect changes in the law or practices relative to the performance of pension actuarial service.
(iv) Credit as an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker will not be awarded to panelists, moderators, or others who are not required to prepare substantive subject matter for their portion of the program. However, such individuals may be awarded credit for attendance, provided the other provisions of this section are met.
(v) The nature of the subject matter will determine if credit will be of a core or non-core nature.
(3)
(ii) One hour of credit will be allowed for each hour of preparation time of the material. It will be the responsibility of the person claiming the credit to maintain records to verify preparation time.
(iii) Publication or distribution may utilize any available technology for the dissemination of written, visual or auditory materials.
(iv) The materials must be available on reasonable terms for acquisition and use by all enrolled actuaries.
(v) The credit for the creation of materials may not exceed 25 percent of the continuing professional education requirement of any enrollment cycle.
(vi) The nature of the subject matter will determine if credit will be of a core or non-core nature.
(vii) Publication of the same material more than one time will not qualify for continuing professional education credit. A publication will not be considered to consist of the same material if a substantial portion has been revised to reflect changes in the law or practices relative to the performance of pension actuarial service.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) Achieving a passing score on the Joint Board pension examination, as described in § 901.12(d)(1)(i), administered under this part during the applicable enrollment cycle; and
(ii) Completing a minimum of 12 hours of qualifying continuing professional education by attending formal program(s) during the same applicable enrollment cycle. This option of satisfying the continuing professional education requirements is not available to those who receive initial enrollment during the enrollment cycle.
(i) [Reserved].
(j)
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(A) The name of the publisher.
(B) The title and author of the publication.
(C) A copy of the publication.
(D) The date of the publication.
(E) The total credit hours earned, and the total core and non-core credit hours earned, and how many of those hours relate to ethics.
(iv)
(k)
(2) A request for waiver must be accompanied by appropriate documentation. The individual will be required to furnish any additional documentation or explanation deemed necessary by the Executive Director.
(3) The individual will be notified by the Executive Director of the disposition of the request for waiver. If the waiver is not approved, and the individual does not otherwise satisfy the continuing professional education requirements within the allotted time, the individual will be placed on the roster of inactive enrolled individuals.
(4) Individuals seeking to rely on a waiver of the continuing professional education requirements must receive the waiver from the Executive Director before filing an application for renewal of enrollment.
(l)
(2) The Executive Director may require any individual, by first class mail sent to his/her mailing address of record with the Joint Board, to provide copies of any records required to be maintained under this section. * * *
(3) * * * A request for review and the reasons in support of the request must be filed with the Joint Board within 30 days of the date of the notice of failure to comply.
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(5)
(ii) For purposes of paragraph (l)(5)(i) of this section, an individual who is in inactive or retired status as of April 1, 2010, will be deemed to have been placed in inactive status on April 1, 2010.
(6) An individual in inactive status may satisfy the requirements for return to active enrollment at any time during his/her period of inactive enrollment. If only completion of the continuing professional education requirement is necessary, the application for return to active enrollment may be filed immediately upon such completion. If qualifying experience is also required, the application for return to active enrollment may not be filed until the completion of both the continuing professional education and qualifying experience requirements set forth in this subsection. Continuing professional education credits applied to meet the requirements for reenrollment under this paragraph (l)(6) may not be used to satisfy the requirements of the enrollment cycle in which the individual has been placed back on the active roster.
(7)
(ii) During the second inactive enrollment cycle; four-thirds of the qualifying continuing professional education requirements as set forth in paragraph (e)(2) of this section (that is, 48 hours), without regard to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(iii) of this section, plus eighteen months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience, must be completed since the start of the first inactive enrollment cycle. Any hours of continuing professional education credit earned during the first inactive enrollment cycle may be applied in satisfying this requirement.
(iii) During the third inactive enrollment cycle: Five-thirds of the qualifying continuing professional education requirements as set forth in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, (that is, 60 hours), without regard to paragraph (e)(2)(ii) or (e)(2)(iii) of this section plus eighteen months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience, must be completed since the start of the second inactive enrollment cycle. Any hours of continuing professional education credit earned during the second inactive enrollment cycle may be applied in satisfying this requirement. No hours earned during the first inactive enrollment cycle may be applied in satisfying this requirement.
(9) An individual who has certified in good faith that he/she has satisfied the continuing professional education requirements of this section will not be considered to be in non-compliance with such requirements on the basis of a program he/she has attended later being found inadequate or not in compliance with the requirements for continuing professional education. * * *
(n)
(o)
Individual E, who was initially enrolled before January 1, 2008, completes 12 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 24 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. E files a complete application for reenrollment on February 28, 2014. E's reenrollment is effective as of April 1, 2014.
Individual F, who was initially enrolled before January 1, 2008, also completes 12 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 24 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. However, F does not file an application for reenrollment until March 20, 2014. The Joint Board notifies F that it has granted F's application on June 25, 2014. Accordingly, effective April 1, 2014, F is placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries. F returns to active status as of June 25, 2014. F is ineligible to perform pension actuarial services as an enrolled actuary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code from April 1 through June 24, 2014.
Individual G, who was initially enrolled before January 1, 2008, completes only 8 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 24 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. G completes another 6 hours of core continuing professional education on January 15, 2014, and files an application for return to active status on January 20, 2014. G's application shows the timely completion of 32 hours of continuing professional education plus the additional 4 hours of continuing professional education earned after the end of the enrollment cycle. The Joint Board notifies G that it has granted the application on April 20, 2014. Accordingly, effective April 1, 2014, G is placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries. G returns to active status as of April 20, 2014. G is ineligible to perform pension actuarial services as an enrolled actuary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code from April 1 through April 19, 2014. Of the 6 hours of continuing professional education earned by G on January 15, 2014, only 2 hours may be applied to the enrollment cycle that ends December 31, 2016.
(i) Individual H, who was initially enrolled before January 1, 2008, completes 5 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 10 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. Accordingly, effective April 1, 2014, E is placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries and is ineligible to perform pension actuarial services as an enrolled actuary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
(ii) H completes 7 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 14 hours of noncore continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2014, and May 24, 2016. Because H has completed 12 hours of core continuing professional education and 24 hours of non-core continuing professional education during the last active enrollment period and the initial period when on inactive status, H has satisfied the requirements for reenrollment during the first inactive cycle. Accordingly, H may file an
(iii) Because H used the 21 hours of continuing professional education credit earned after January 1, 2014, for return from inactive status, H may not apply any of these 21 hours of core and non-core continuing professional education credits towards the requirements for renewed enrollment effective April 1, 2017. Accordingly, H must complete an additional 36 hours of continuing professional education (12 core and 24 non-core) prior to December 31, 2016, to be eligible for renewed enrollment effective April 1, 2017.
(i) The facts are the same as in
(ii) Accordingly, in order to be eligible to file an application for return to active status on or before December 31, 2019, H must complete an additional 38 hours of continuing professional education credit (of which at least 14 hours must consist of core subject matter) between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, and have 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience during the period beginning on January 1, 2014.
(iii) Note that the 5 hours of core continuing professional education credit and the 10 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit that H completes between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, are not counted toward H's return to active status and are also not taken into account toward the additional hours of continuing professional education credit that H must complete between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, in order to apply for renewal of enrollment effective April 1, 2020.
(i) The facts are the same as in
(ii) Accordingly, in order to be eligible to file an application for return to active status on or before December 31, 2022, H must complete an additional 24 hours of continuing professional education credit (of which, at least 8 hours must consist of core subject matter) between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022, and have at least 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience during the period beginning on January 1, 2017.
(iii) Note that the total of 15 hours of continuing professional education credit that E completes between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, as well as the 10 hours of continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, are not counted toward H's return to active status and are not taken into account toward the additional hours of continuing professional education credit that H must complete between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, in order to be eligible to file an application for renewal of enrollment active status effective April 1, 2023.
(i) Individual J, who was initially enrolled July 1, 2012, completes 1 hour of core continuing professional education credit and 2 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Accordingly, effective April 1, 2014, J is placed on the roster of inactive enrolled actuaries and is ineligible to perform pension actuarial services as an enrolled actuary under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
(ii) F completes 5 hours of core continuing professional education credit and 4 hours of non-core continuing professional education credit between January 1, 2014, and October 6, 2014. Because J did not complete the required 12 hours of continuing professional education (of which at least 6 hours must consist of core subject matter) during F's initial enrollment cycle, J is not eligible to file an application for a return to active enrollment on October 6, 2014, notwithstanding the fact that had J completed such hours between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013, J would have satisfied the requirements for renewed enrollment effective April 1, 2014.
(iii) Accordingly, J must complete an additional 24 hours of continuing professional education (of which at least 12 hours must consist of core subject matter) during his/her first inactive enrollment cycle before applying for renewal of enrollment.
The facts are the same as in
(p) With the exception of paragraphs (e)(1) and (f)(3)(iii) of this section, this section applies to the enrollment cycle beginning January 1, 2011, and all subsequent enrollment cycles.
(a)
(b)
(1) A minimum of 36 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience; or
(2) A minimum of 60 months of certified responsible actuarial experience, including at least 18 months of certified responsible pension actuarial experience.
(d)
(i)
(ii)
(2) For purposes of this section, the date of successful completion of an examination is generally the date a candidate sits for the examination, provided that the candidate receives a passing grade on that examination. However, an applicant who sat for an
(e)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)
(2) An enrolled actuary shall not perform actuarial services for any person or organization which he/she believes, or has reasonable grounds to believe, may utilize his/her services in a fraudulent manner or in a manner inconsistent with law.
(d)
(i) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(ii) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the enrolled actuary's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or by a personal interest of the enrolled actuary.
(2) Notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the enrolled actuary may represent a client if—
(i) The enrolled actuary reasonably believes that he or she will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(ii) The representation is not prohibited by law; and
(iii) Each affected client waives the conflict of interest and gives informed consent at the time the existence of the conflict of interest is known by the enrolled actuary.
(e)
(i) Except as mandated by law, the actuarial assumptions are reasonable individually and in combination, and the actuarial cost method and the actuarial method of valuation of assets are appropriate;
(ii) The calculations are accurately carried out and properly documented; and
(iii) The report, any recommendations, and any supplemental advice or explanation relative to the report reflect the results of the calculations.
(2) An enrolled actuary shall include in any report or certificate stating actuarial costs or liabilities, a statement or reference describing or clearly identifying the data, any material inadequacies therein and the implications thereof, and the actuarial methods and assumptions employed.
(f)
(i) In preparing or assisting in the preparation of, approving, and filing tax returns, documents, affidavits, and other papers relating to the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or any other applicable Federal or State entity;
(ii) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the enrolled actuary to the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or any other applicable Federal or State entity; and
(iii) In determining the correctness of oral or written representations made by the enrolled actuary to clients.
(2) An enrolled actuary advising a client to take a position on any document to be filed with the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or any other applicable Federal or State entity (or preparing or signing such a return or document) generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the client. The enrolled actuary may not, however, ignore the implications of information furnished to, or actually known by, the enrolled actuary, and must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect, inconsistent with an important fact or another factual assumption, or incomplete.
(g)
(h)
(i) [Reserved].
(j)
(2) For purposes of this section, records of the client include all documents or written or electronic materials provided to the enrolled actuary, or obtained by the enrolled actuary in the course of the enrolled actuary's representation of the client, that preexisted the retention of the enrolled actuary by the client. The term “records of the client” also includes materials that were prepared by the client or a third party (not including an employee or agent of the enrolled actuary) at any time and provided to the enrolled actuary with respect to the subject matter of the representation. The term “records of the client” also includes any return, claim for refund, schedule, affidavit, appraisal or any other document prepared by the enrolled actuary, or his or her employee or agent, that was presented to the client with respect to a prior representation if such document is necessary for the taxpayer to comply with his or her current obligations under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. The term “records of the client” does not include any return, claim for refund, schedule, affidavit, appraisal or any other document prepared by the enrolled actuary or the enrolled actuary's firm, employees or agents if the enrolled actuary is withholding such document pending the client's performance of its contractual obligation to pay fees with respect to such document.
(l) The rules of this section apply to all actuarial services and related acts performed on or after May 2, 2011.
(a)
(c)
* * * If any other person has information of any such violation, he/she may make a report thereof to the Executive Director.
* * * Copies of exhibits introduced at the hearing or at the taking of depositions will be supplied to parties upon the payment of a reasonable fee (31 U.S.C. 9701).
The Joint Board may, in notice or other guidance of general applicability, provide additional rules regarding the enrollment of actuaries.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations by removing those portions that reflect approval of 13 new animal drug applications (NADAs). In a notice published elsewhere in this issue of the
This rule is effective April 11, 2011.
John Bartkowiak, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9079, e-mail:
The sponsors of the 13 approved NADAs listed in table 1 have requested that FDA withdraw approval because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
In a notice published elsewhere in this issue of the
Following these changes of sponsorship, Abraxis Pharmaceutical Products, Furst-McNess Co., Roche Vitamins, Inc., Waterloo Mills Co., and Wendt Laboratories, Inc., are no longer the sponsors of an approved application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove the entries for these firms.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801–808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b) * * *
(2)
(c) * * *
(3)
21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 U.S.C. 360b.
21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
This rulemaking finalizes a February 24, 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which DEA proposed to control the chemical precursor ergocristine as a List I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Clandestine laboratories are using this chemical as a substitute for the List I chemicals ergotamine and ergonovine to illicitly manufacture the schedule I controlled substance lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).
This rule is being finalized as proposed. Therefore, handlers of ergocristine shall be subject to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations. This rulemaking does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of ergocristine. As such, all transactions involving ergocristine, regardless of size, shall be regulated. This rulemaking also specifies that chemical mixtures containing ergocristine will not be exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration. Therefore, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing any quantity of ergocristine shall be regulated and subject to control under the CSA.
This rulemaking becomes effective May 2, 2011. Persons seeking registration must apply on or before May 2, 2011 to continue their business pending final action by DEA on their application.
Christine A. Sannerud, PhD, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; telephone: (202) 307–7183.
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a synthetic schedule I hallucinogen. It is the most potent hallucinogen known and only microgram amounts are required to produce overt hallucinations. It induces a heightened awareness of sensory input that is accompanied by an enhanced sense of clarity, but reduced ability to control what is experienced.
LSD has been manufactured illegally since the 1960s. A limited number of chemists, probably less than a dozen, are believed to be manufacturing nearly all of the LSD available in the United States. Clandestine laboratory operators must adhere to precise and complex production procedures, and production of LSD is relatively difficult.
LSD has historically been produced from lysergic acid, which is made from ergotamine or ergonovine, substances derived from an ergot fungus on rye, or from lysergic acid amide, a chemical found in morning glory seeds.
Because of the existing CSA regulatory controls on the LSD precursors lysergic acid, lysergic acid amide, ergotamine, and ergonovine, clandestine laboratory operators have sought uncontrolled sources of precursor material for the production of LSD. This has led to the illicit utilization of the precursor chemical ergocristine as a direct substitute for ergotamine and ergonovine for the illicit production of LSD. In fact, the largest clandestine LSD laboratory ever seized by DEA utilized ergocristine as the LSD precursor. Recipes documenting procedures for utilizing ergocristine in LSD synthesis are easily found on the Internet.
DEA has determined that ergocristine is readily available from commercial chemical suppliers. DEA has identified at least three suppliers of ergocristine, of which one distributor is located domestically; the other two are based in Germany and the Czech Republic.
This rule implements both domestic and import/export controls on ergocristine (and its salts). As noted in the February 24, 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (75 FR 8287), such controls are deemed necessary for law enforcement to identify domestic and international transactions in ergocristine, due to growing concerns regarding its use for the illicit manufacture of LSD.
The CSA, specifically 21 U.S.C. 802(34), and its implementing regulations at 21 CFR 1310.02(c), provide the Attorney General with the authority to specify, by regulation, additional chemicals as List I chemicals” if they are used in the manufacture of a controlled substance in violation of the CSA, and are important to the manufacture of the controlled substance. Ergocristine is being used in clandestine laboratories as the precursor material for the illicit manufacture of the schedule I controlled substance LSD. This rule implements the regulation of ergocristine as a List I chemical because DEA finds that it is used in the illicit manufacture of the controlled substance LSD and is important to the illicit manufacture of the controlled substance LSD.
Handlers of ergocristine shall be subject to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA, including 21 CFR parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316. This rulemaking does not establish a threshold for domestic and import transactions of ergocristine pursuant to the provisions of 21 CFR 1310.04(g). Due to the high potency of LSD, even a single gram (
DEA did not receive any comments in response to the February 24, 2010, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed the control of ergocristine. Therefore, this rule finalizes the NPRM, as proposed.
As such, effective May 2, 2011, handlers of ergocristine shall be subject to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations, including 21 CFR parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316.
Chemical mixtures containing ergocristine will not be exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration, unless an application for exemption of a chemical mixture is submitted by an ergocristine manufacturer and the application is reviewed and accepted by DEA under 21 CFR 1310.13 (Exemption by Application Process). Since even a small amount of ergocristine is able to be used in the illicit manufacture of a significant amount of LSD, the control of chemical mixtures containing any amount of ergocristine is necessary to prevent the illicit extraction, isolation, and use of the ergocristine. Therefore, all chemical mixtures containing any quantity of ergocristine will be subject to CSA control, unless the ergocristine manufacturer is granted an exemption by the application process discussed below. The Table of Concentration Limits in 21 CFR 1310.12(c) is hereby modified to reflect the fact that chemical mixtures containing any amount of ergocristine are subject to CSA chemical control provisions.
DEA has implemented an application process to exempt chemical mixtures from the requirements of the CSA and its implementing regulations (21 CFR 1310.13). Under the application process, manufacturers may submit an application for exemption for those mixtures that do not qualify for automatic exemption. Exemption status can be granted if DEA determines that the mixture is formulated in such a way that it cannot be easily used in the illicit production of a controlled substance and that the listed chemical cannot be readily recovered (
The designation of ergocristine as a List I chemical subjects ergocristine handlers to all of the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importing, and exporting of a List I chemical. Persons potentially handling ergocristine, including regulated chemical mixtures containing ergocristine, will be required to comply with the following List I chemical regulations:
DEA notes that warehouses are exempt from the requirement of registration and may lawfully possess List I chemicals, if the possession of those chemicals is in the usual course of business (21 U.S.C. 822(c)(2), 21 U.S.C. 957(b)(1)(B)). For purposes of this exemption, the warehouse must receive the List I chemical from a DEA registrant and shall only distribute the List I chemical back to the DEA registrant and registered location from which it was received. All other activities conducted by a warehouse do not fall under this exemption; a warehouse that distributes List I chemicals to persons other than the registrant and registered location from which they were obtained is conducting distribution activities and is required to register as such (21 CFR 1309.23(b)(1)).
Any person manufacturing, distributing, importing, or exporting ergocristine or a chemical mixture containing ergocristine will be subject to the registration requirement under the CSA. DEA recognizes, however, that it is not possible for persons who are subject to the registration requirement to immediately complete and submit an application for registration and for DEA to immediately issue registrations for those activities. Therefore, to allow continued legitimate commerce in ergocristine, DEA is establishing in 21 CFR 1310.09, a temporary exemption from the registration requirement for persons desiring to engage in activities with ergocristine, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration on or before May 2, 2011. The temporary exemption for such persons will remain in effect until DEA takes final action on their application for registration or application for exemption of a chemical mixture.
The temporary exemption applies solely to the registration requirement; all other chemical control requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting, would become effective May 2, 2011. Therefore, all transactions of ergocristine and chemical mixtures
Additionally, the temporary exemption does not suspend applicable Federal criminal laws relating to ergocristine, nor does it supersede State or local laws or regulations. All handlers of ergocristine must comply with applicable State and local requirements in addition to the CSA regulatory controls.
Each regulated bulk manufacturer of a listed chemical will be required to submit manufacturing, inventory, and use data on an annual basis (21 CFR 1310.05(d)). Existing standard industry reports containing the required information will be acceptable, provided the information is readily retrievable from the report.
Title 21 CFR 1310.05(a) requires that each regulated person shall report to DEA any regulated transaction involving an extraordinary quantity of a listed chemical, an uncommon method of payment or delivery, or any other circumstance that the regulated person believes may indicate that the listed chemical will be used in violation of the CSA and its corresponding regulations. Persons are also required to report any proposed regulated transaction with a person whose description or other identifying characteristics the Administration has previously furnished to the regulated person; any unusual or excessive loss or disappearance of a listed chemical under the control of the regulated person; any in-transit loss in which the regulated person is the supplier; and any domestic regulated transaction in a tableting or encapsulating machine.
The Administrator hereby certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). DEA has been able to identify only one U.S. distributor that lists ergocristine among its products. Because most of the firm's product source appears to be located outside the U.S. and because DEA has not been able to identify any U.S. manufacturer that produces a product containing ergocristine, DEA does not consider it likely that this domestic distributor would be subject to the rule, unless they imported ergocristine. The only probable legitimate commerce in this chemical appears to be the use of ergocristine as precursor material for the synthesis of a research compound. If used for this purpose, then there would be a registration and recordkeeping requirement for this distributor to import the ergocristine. Such use would likely be extremely limited. Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Administrator certifies that this rulemaking has been drafted in accordance with the principles in Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b). It has been determined that this is “a significant regulatory action.” Therefore, this action has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. DEA has not conducted an economic analysis of the final rule because DEA has been able to identify only one company with a U.S. address that lists ergocristine among its products. DEA was able to identify only two foreign firms that list ergocristine as a product. These firms appear to sell ergocristine as an active pharmaceutical ingredient, but a search of the Food and Drug Administration's database of approved drugs did not identify any drug with ergocristine as an active ingredient. Consequently, DEA does not believe that at this time any firm conducting legitimate business is likely to have to comply with the rule.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of State law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any State; nor does it diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $126,400,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in cost or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Drug traffic control, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1310 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 871(b), 890.
(a) * * *
(30) Ergocristine and its salts 8612
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Ergocristine and its salts
(l)(1) Each person required under sections 302 and 1007 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 822, 957) to obtain a registration to manufacture, distribute, import, or export regulated ergocristine and its salts, including regulated chemical mixtures pursuant to § 1310.12, is temporarily exempted from the registration requirement, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration or application for exemption for a chemical mixture containing ergocristine and its salts pursuant to § 1310.13 on or before May 2, 2011. The exemption will remain in effect for each person who has made such application until the Administration has approved or denied that application. This exemption applies only to registration; all other chemical control requirements set forth in the Act and parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316 of this chapter remain in full force and effect.
(2) Any person who manufactures, distributes, imports, or exports a chemical mixture containing ergocristine and its salts whose application for exemption is subsequently denied by DEA must obtain a registration with DEA. A temporary exemption from the registration requirement will also be provided for those persons whose applications for exemption are denied, provided that DEA receives a properly completed application for registration on or before 30 days following the date of official DEA notification that the application for exemption has been denied. The temporary exemption for such persons will remain in effect until DEA takes final action on their registration application.
(c) * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document describes correcting amends to final and temporary regulations concerning the treatment of certain intercompany gain with respect to stock owned by members of a consolidated group. These regulations provide for the redetermination of intercompany gain as excluded from gross income in certain transactions involving stock transfers between members of a consolidated group. These errors were made when the agency published final and temporary regulations (TD 9515) in the
This correction is effective on March 31, 2011, and is applicable on March 4, 2011.
John F. Tarrant, (202) 622–7790 or Lawrence M. Axelrod, (202) 622–7713 (not toll-free numbers).
The final and temporary regulations (TD 9515) that are the subject of this document are under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9515) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(D)
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) * * *
(
Coast Guard, DHS.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
On December 21, 2010, the Coast Guard published a direct final rule that notified the public of the Coast Guard's intent to amend its “Coast Guard Whistleblower Protection” regulations to conform to statutory protections for all members of the Armed Forces. We have not received an adverse comment, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, on this rule. Therefore, the rule will go into effect as scheduled.
The effective date of the direct final rule published December 21, 2010, (75 FR 79956), is confirmed as April 20, 2011.
The docket for this rulemaking, USCG–2009–0239, is available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this notice, e-mail or call Commander Michael Cavallaro, U.S. Coast Guard Office of General Law, telephone 202–372–3777, e-mail
On December 21, 2010, we published a direct final rule entitled “Protection for Whistleblowers in the Coast Guard” in the
We published the rule as a direct final rule under 33 CFR 1.05–55 because we considered this rule to be noncontroversial and did not expect an adverse comment regarding this rulemaking. In the direct final rule we notified the public of our intent to make the rule effective on April 20, 2011, unless adverse comment or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment was received on or before February 22, 2011. We have not received any comments, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, on this rulemaking. Therefore the rule will go into effect as scheduled, on April 20, 2011.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule; change of effective period.
The Coast Guard is extending the effective period for temporary fixed and moving security zones around certain passenger vessels in the Sector Southeastern New England Captain of the Port Zone through October 1, 2011. Temporary section 33 CFR 165.T01–0864, which established these temporary security zones, was set to expire on April 1, 2011. Extending the effective period for these security zones provides continued and uninterrupted protection of passengers, vessels, and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature.
Section 165.T01–0864 temporarily added at 75 FR 63717, October 18, 2010, effective from October 18, 2010, until April 1, 2011, will continue in effect through October 1, 2011.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the
If you have questions about this notice, call or e-mail Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Sector Southeastern New England; telephone (401) 435–2351, e-mail
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). This rule extends the existing temporary security zones that are a necessary and key component of the Coast Guard's maritime security mission in Southeastern New England, and a separate permanent rulemaking is being pursued under docket USCG–2010–0803, where the public will be afforded ample opportunity to comment. Providing a public notice and comment period for this temporary final rule is contrary to national security concerns and the public interest.
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The security zones in place pursuant to the Temporary Final Rule at docket USCG–2010–0864 (75 FR 63714, October 18, 2010) were established to protect certain passenger vessels in the Southeastern New England Captain of the Port Zone from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. The authority for these security zones is set to expire on April 1, 2011. The Coast Guard is in the process of completing a separate rulemaking to create permanent security zones in these locations under docket USCG–2010–0803. The temporary security zones created by this rule ensures that there is no gap in authority relative to the Coast Guard's maritime security mission to protect passenger vessels from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature while the rulemaking process is ongoing.
The Coast Guard is extending the effective date of security zones within a maximum 100-yard radius around passenger vessels that are moored, or in the process of mooring, at any berth or at anchor within the Sector Southeastern New England Captain of The Port Zone. This rule will also continue fixed moving security zones that will be in effect in waters up to 200 yards around escorted passenger vessels while underway in the navigable waters within the Sector Southeastern New England Captain of The Port Zone.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders relating to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. The effect of this rule will not be significant. Temporary moving security zones will only be in effect while escorted passenger vessels are underway, and the zone will not restrict any waterway for a long period of time. The vast majority of passenger vessel transits in the waters of Sector Southeastern New England Captain of the Port Zone are less than two hours. Temporary fixed security zones around passenger vessels that are moored, or in the process of mooring, at any berth or at anchor are anticipated to have minimal impact on vessel traffic because such vessels anchored or moored in designated anchorages or at waterfront facilities are away from navigation channels used by mariners. Additionally, vessels may be permitted to enter these security zones with expressed permission of the Captain of the Port, minimizing any adverse impact. It has been determined that the necessary security enhancements provided by this rule greatly outweigh any potential negative impacts.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit the waters of Sector Southeastern New England Captain of the Port Zone while the security zones are enforced. These security zones will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The moving security zones will only be enforced when an escorted passenger vessel is underway, and such transits in the Sector Southeastern New England Captain of the Port Zone are typically less than two hours in duration; the fixed security zones around passenger vessels moored, or in the process of mooring, at a berth or at anchorage, allow for vessel traffic to transit the navigable waters outside the zone. Additionally, vessels may be permitted to enter these security zones with the express prior permission of the Captain of the Port, minimizing any adverse impact.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If you think your small business or organization would be
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(g), as it establishes a temporary security zone for a limited period of time. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising the
Annette Raney at 202–268–4307, Karen Key at 202–268–7492, or Yvonne Gifford at 202–268–8082.
Current mailing standards permit Parcel Select mailpieces to be forwarded, without an additional postage charge, when the old and new addresses are served within the same Post Office unit. With this final rule, Parcel Select mailpieces will no longer be handed-off to facilitate local delivery within the same office but rather sent to a Centralized Forwarding System (CFS) facility for automated handling. Recipients will now incur an additional service fee, plus the cost of Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort postage for mailpieces that are forwarded locally, just as they do for those mailpieces that are forwarded beyond the local area.
Additionally, with this final rule, mailers who do not wish to pay for forwarding outside the local area may no longer request that parcels not be forwarded. PS Form 3546, which notifies the postmaster of the old address to discontinue forwarding Package Services or Parcel Select, has been revised accordingly.
Prior to December 2006, Parcel Select was forwarded and returned at the Parcel Post price. With the classification of Parcel Select as a competitive product, the DMM was revised to accommodate these changes; however, the price to forward and return Parcel Select was not separately mentioned. With this notice, we are specifying that the price to forward or return Parcel Select pieces will now be the applicable Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price, plus an additional service fee, which will cover the cost for forwarding or returning the Parcel Select mailpiece.
The Postal Service filed a Notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) on March 16, 2011 regarding the forwarding and return service for Parcel Select mailpieces. The regulatory review may take up to 30 days from that date.
The Postal Service herby adopts the following changes to the
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
USPS letter carrier offices give directory service to the types of mail listed below that have an insufficient address or cannot be delivered at the address given (the USPS does not compile a directory of any kind):
d. Parcels mailed at any Package Services or Parcel Select price.
Mail with extra services is treated according to the charts for each class of mail in 1.5, except that:
b. All insured First-Class Mail is forwarded and returned at no additional cost. All insured Standard Mail, Package Services, and Parcel Select is forwarded or returned.
Undeliverable-as-addressed (UAA) Package Services and Parcel Select mailpieces are treated as described in Exhibit 1.5.4, with these additional conditions:
c. The endorsement “Change Service Requested” is not permitted for Package Services or Parcel Select mailpieces containing hazardous materials under 601.10.0.
d. If a Package Services or a Parcel Select mailpiece and any attachment are not opened by the addressee, the addressee may refuse delivery of the piece and have it returned to the sender without affixing postage. Pieces endorsed “change service requested” as allowed in 1.5.4c are not returned to sender when refused. If a Package Services or Parcel Select piece or any attachment to that piece is opened by the addressee, the addressee must affix the applicable postage to return the piece to the sender. * * *
e. An undeliverable Package Services or a Parcel Select mailpiece that bears postage with a postage evidencing imprint and that has no return address or illegible return address is returned to the meter licensee or PC Postage customer upon payment of the return postage. The reason for nondelivery is attached, with no address correction fee. All Package Services (except unendorsed Bound Printed Matter) and Parcel Select pieces must have a legible return address.
If no change-of-address order on file:
Piece is returned with reason for nondelivery attached (only return postage charged) as follows:
a. Parcel Select: At the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services: At the appropriate single-piece price for the specific class of mail.
If change of-address order on file:
•
a. Parcel Select: At the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services: At the single-piece price for the class of mail.
•
•
If no change-of-address order on file:
Piece returned with reason for nondelivery attached; return postage charged as follows:
a. Parcel Select: At the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services: At the appropriate single-piece price for the specific class of mail.
If change of-address order on file:
•
a. Parcel Select: At the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services: At the single-piece price for the class of mail.
•
•
In all cases:
Piece returned with new address or reason for nondelivery attached (return postage charged as follows):
a. Parcel Select: At the Parcel Select Barcoded Nonpresorted price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services: At the appropriate single-piece price for the specific class of mail.
Undeliverable, unendorsed mailpieces with a First-Class Mail attachment or enclosure are forwarded or returned as follows:
a. Parcel Select at the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee.
b. Package Services at the single-piece price for the specific class of mail.
c. For both types of host pieces, if the attachment or enclosure is a nonincidental First-Class Mail attachment or enclosure, the weight of the attachment or enclosure is not included when computing charges.
Pieces of Periodicals, Standard Mail, Package Services, or Parcel Select with other classes of mail attached or enclosed (other than incidental First-Class Mail attachments or enclosures) must be forwarded under standards for the host piece. Neither the enclosures nor the host piece are provided the forwarding service of First-Class Mail.
* * * Every reasonable effort is made to match articles found loose in the mail with the envelope or wrapper from which lost and to return or forward the articles.
e. Except for unendorsed Standard Mail, all undeliverable Standard Mail, Package Services, Parcel Select, and insured First-Class Mail containing Standard Mail or Package Services enclosures that cannot be returned because of an incorrect, incomplete, illegible, or missing return address is opened and examined to identify the sender or addressee.
All Express Mail, First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Parcel Select mail addressed to a discontinued Post Office may be forwarded without charge to a Post Office that the addressee designates as more convenient than the office to which the USPS ordered the mail sent.
When rural delivery service is established or changed, a customer of an office receiving mail from the original delivery office may file a written request with the postmaster at the original office to have all Express Mail, First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Parcel Select mail forwarded to the new delivery office without added charge.
All Express Mail, First-Class Mail, Periodicals, Package Services, and Parcel Select mail addressed to persons in the U.S. Armed Forces (including civilian employees) serving where U.S. mail service operates is forwarded at no added charge when the change of address is caused by official orders. * * *
Package Services and Parcel Select pieces are subject to the collection of additional postage at the applicable price for forwarding; Parcel Select at the Parcel Select barcoded nonpresort price plus the additional service fee and Package Services at the single-piece price for the specific class of mail. Unless endorsed “Change Service Requested,” all Package Services pieces are delivered without additional postage charge when the old and new addresses are served by the same Post Office. Shipper Paid Forwarding, used with
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service will revise the
Effective June 6, 2011.
Gregory Dawson at 202–268–7446, Steve Monteith at 202–268–6983, or Yvonne Gifford at 202–268–8082.
This new NSA for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail is based on the combined total revenue of First-Class Mail automation letters, Standard Mail automation letters, and Standard Mail carrier route barcoded automation-compatible letters.
The 3-year agreement is designed to maintain and grow the total contribution the Postal Service receives from First-Class Mail and Standard Mail and to provide an incentive for net contribution growth beyond that. The agreement has five main components: A revenue threshold using a participant-specific baseline, a revenue threshold adjustment, a postage commitment, a rebate on First-Class Mail, and a rebate on Standard Mail.
The revenue threshold is based on the amount of total postage paid for First-Class Mail automation letters, Standard Mail automation letters, and Standard Mail carrier route barcoded automation-compatible letters. The baseline for the revenue threshold is the total postage for these categories over the previous one-year period. The threshold is calculated at a negotiated percentage above the baseline for each year during the duration of the agreement.
The revenue threshold will be adjusted upward by a negotiated amount for every dollar decline in First-Class Mail postage. To qualify for rebates under this adjustment, a determined revenue amount of Standard Mail must be mailed to offset each dollar decline in postage from First-Class Mail.
The agreement contains a postage commitment, equal to the adjusted revenue threshold or any subsequent yearly adjusted threshold. If the amount of total postage from eligible mail in the first year of the contract is less than the adjusted threshold, a penalty is assessed for the difference between the adjusted revenue threshold and the actual total postage paid for contract year one. Subsequent year penalties for failing to meet the adjusted revenue threshold are negotiated by the parties prior to the end of the current contract year.
If the mailer holding the agreement meets or exceeds the adjusted postage thresholds in any given year of the contract, the mailer will earn a rebate on the qualifying First-Class Mail and Standard Mail postage. For First-Class Mail, the rebate will be equal to a negotiated percent of the increase in postage as a result of a subsequent cumulative price increase (relative to First-Class Mail prices in existence at the initiation of the agreement) for all qualifying pieces. For Standard Mail, the rebate will be equal to a negotiated percent of the increase in postage as a result of a subsequent cumulative price increase (relative to Standard Mail prices in existence at the initiation of the agreement) for all qualifying pieces.
The NSA expires three years from the effective date. Either party can terminate the agreement, without penalty, for convenience, in the first nine months of any contract year provided the terminating party gives 90 days written notice prior to the planned termination date to the other party.
In accordance with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, on January 14, 2011, the Postal Service filed a Notice with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) regarding the Market Dominant Negotiated Service Agreement (NSA) for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail and it was approved on March 15, 2011.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
The First-Class Mail and Standard Mail NSA is based on the combined total revenue of First-Class Mail automation letters, Standard Mail automation letters, and Standard Mail carrier route automation letters, and provides an incentive to encourage the growth of First-Class Mail. A baseline is determined from the revenue generated from First-Class Mail automation letters, Standard Mail automation letters, and Standard Mail carrier route barcoded automation-compatible letters that are mailed as and eligible for full-service Intelligent Mail prices (705.23) during a prior specified 12-month period of time. It includes a postage threshold that is
Potential participants must be IMb full-service customers with substantial, but declining First-Class Mail volumes and significant volumes of Standard Mail. Candidates must also meet the standards in 1.1 through 1.3 to qualify. The basic agreement comprises five components:
a. Revenue threshold: Is based on the amount of total combined postage paid for First-Class Mail automation letters, Standard Mail automation letters, and Standard Mail carrier route barcoded automation-compatible letters. The baseline for the revenue threshold is the total postage for these categories over the previous one-year period. The threshold is calculated at a negotiated percentage above the baseline for each year during the duration of the agreement.
b. Revenue threshold adjustment: Will be adjusted upward by a negotiated amount for every dollar decline in First-Class Mail postage. To qualify for rebates under this adjustment, a pre-determined revenue amount of Standard Mail must be mailed to offset each dollar decline in postage from First-Class Mail.
c. Postage commitment with penalty: The postage commitment is an amount equal to the adjusted revenue threshold. If the amount of total postage from eligible mail in the first year of the contract is less than the adjusted revenue threshold, a negotiated percentage penalty in the amount of the difference between the adjusted revenue threshold and the actual total postage paid for contract year one must be paid. Subsequent year penalties for failing to meet the adjusted revenue threshold are negotiated by the parties prior to the end of the current contract year.
d. Rebate on First-Class Mail: If the mailer holding the agreement exceeds the adjusted revenue thresholds in any given year of the contract, it will earn rebates on its qualifying First-Class Mail postage. The rebate will be equal to a negotiated percent of the increase in postage as a result of a subsequent cumulative price increase (relative to First-Class Mail prices in existence at the initiation of the agreement) for all qualifying pieces.
e. Rebate on Standard Mail: If the mailer holding the agreement exceeds the adjusted revenue thresholds in any given year of the contract, it will earn rebates on its qualifying Standard Mail postage. The rebate will be equal to a negotiated percent of the increase in postage as a result of a subsequent cumulative price increase (relative to Standard Mail prices in existence at the initiation of the agreement) for all qualifying pieces.
Any proposed First-Class Mail and Standard Mail NSA under this classification must also contain, at a minimum, the following general candidate requirements and conditions:
a. The NSA expires three years from the effective date. Either party can terminate the agreement, without penalty, for convenience, in the first nine months of any contract year provided the terminating party gives 90 days written notice prior to the planned termination date to the other party.
b. The NSA will contain a merger and acquisition clause, which adjusts the threshold to account for increased mailing activity (or decreased, in the case of a sale or closure).
The proposal must explain how the candidate meets the requirements in 1.4.2 and also must meet the following conditions:
a. The candidate must submit a written proposal that includes appropriate supporting documentation to the USPS Manager of Correspondence & Transactions (
b. The proposal must be initiated by the mailer and include a summary of the information responding to the applicable candidate features and general requirements described in 1.4.3.
c. A nondisclosure agreement must be signed before any substantive discussion of the proposal begins.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to reflect these changes.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure of spiny dogfish fishery.
NMFS announces that the spiny dogfish commercial quota available to the coastal states from Maine through Florida for the 2010 fishing year (FY), May 1, 2010–April 30, 2011, has been harvested. Therefore, effective 0001 hours, April 1, 2011, federally permitted spiny dogfish vessels may not fish for, possess, transfer, or land spiny dogfish until May 1, 2011, when the quota for FY 2011 becomes available. Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery require publication of this notification to advise the coastal states from Maine through Florida that the quota has been harvested and to advise vessel permit holders and dealer permit holders that no Federal commercial quota is available for landing spiny dogfish in these states. This action is necessary to prevent the fishery from exceeding its annual quota and to allow for effective management of this stock.
The spiny dogfish fishery is closed effective 0001 hr local time, April 1, 2011, through 2400 hr local time April 30, 2011. Effective April 1, 2011, federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase spiny dogfish from federally permitted spiny dogfish vessels.
Lindsey Feldman at (978) 675–2179, or
Regulations governing the spiny dogfish fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota, which is allocated into two quota periods based upon percentages specified in the fishery management plan. The fishery is managed from Maine through Florida, as described in § 648.230.
The total commercial quota for spiny dogfish for FY 2010 is 15 million lb
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) monitors the commercial spiny dogfish quota for each quota period and, based upon dealer reports, state data, and other available information, determines when the total commercial quota will be harvested. NMFS is required to publish a notification in the
Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a condition of their permit, not to land spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS has published notification in the
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. The regulations at § 648.231 require such action to ensure that spiny dogfish vessels do not exceed the FY 2010 quota. Data indicating the spiny dogfish fleet will have landed the FY 2010 quota have only recently become available. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the FY 2010 quota would be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. The AA further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; final specifications for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery.
NMFS issues final specifications for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including total allowable landings (TAL), a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit (RHL), and a recreational possession limit. The intent of this action is to establish the allowable 2011 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F), consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The final rule also amends the bluefish regulations that specify the process for setting the annual TAL and target F to more clearly reflect the intent of the FMP.
This rule is effective May 2, 2011. The final specifications for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery are effective May 2, 2011, through December 31, 2011.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/IRFA) and other supporting documents for the specifications, are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 N. State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281–9177.
The Atlantic bluefish fishery is managed cooperatively by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The management unit for bluefish specified in the FMP is U.S. waters of the western Atlantic Ocean. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and J. The regulations requiring annual specifications are found at § 648.16.
The FMP requires the Council to recommend, on an annual basis, a total allowable catch (TAC) and a TAL that will control fishing mortality. An estimate of annual discards is deducted from the TAC to calculate the TAL that can be made during the year by the commercial and recreational fishing sectors combined. The FMP requires that 17 percent of the TAL be allocated to the commercial fishery, as a quota (further allocated to the States from Maine to Florida in specified shares), with the remaining 83 percent of the TAL allocated as an RHL. The Council may also recommend a research set-aside (RSA) quota, which is deducted from the bluefish TAL (after any applicable transfer) in an amount proportional to the percentage of the overall TAL as allocated to the commercial and recreational sectors.
Pursuant to § 648.162, the annual review process for bluefish requires that the Council's Bluefish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) and Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) review and make recommendations based on the best available data, including, but not limited to, commercial and recreational catch/landing statistics, current estimates of fishing mortality, stock abundance, discards for the recreational fishery, and juvenile recruitment. Based on the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and SSC, the Council makes a recommendation to the NMFS Northeast Regional
The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. NMFS is responsible for reviewing these recommendations to assure they achieve the FMP objectives, and may modify them if they do not. NMFS then publishes proposed specifications in the
According to Amendment 1 to the FMP (Amendment 1), overfishing for bluefish occurs when F exceeds the fishing mortality rate that allows maximum sustainable yield (F
An age-structured assessment program (ASAP) model for bluefish was approved by the 41st Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC 41) in 2005 to estimate F and annual biomass. In June 2010, the ASAP model was updated in order to estimate the current status of the bluefish stock (
The Council's SSC met in July 2010 to review updated stock status and other fishery independent and dependent data to recommend an acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the 2011 bluefish fishing year. Based on the updated bluefish assessment, the SSC recommended an ABC of 31.744 million lb (14,399 mt), which corresponds to an F of 0.15. Following the SSC meeting, the Monitoring Committee met to review the SSC's ABC determination and recommend bluefish management measures for 2011. The MC recommended an F
Based strictly on the percentages specified in the FMP (17 percent commercial, 83 percent recreational), the commercial quota for 2011 would be 4.640 million lb (2,105 mt) and the RHL would be 22.653 million lb (10,275 mt) in 2011. However, the FMP stipulates that, in any year in which 17 percent of the TAL is less than 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), and the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit for the upcoming year, the commercial quota may be increased up to 10.500 million lb (4,763 mt), provided that the combined projected recreational landings and commercial quota would not exceed the TAL. The RHL would then be adjusted downward so that the TAL would be unchanged.
The Council postponed projections of estimated recreational harvest for 2011 until Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) harvest data through Wave 5 of 2010 became available (six “Waves” of data are released each year by MRFSS). In the meantime, the 3-year average of annual recreational harvest from 2007 through 2009 (17.882 million lb (8,111 mt)) was applied as the estimated recreational harvest for 2011. As such, it was expected that a transfer of up to 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector could be approved. This option represents the preferred alternative recommended by the Council in its specifications document.
Northeast Regional Office staff recently updated the recreational harvest projection using 2010 MRFSS data through Wave 6. The inclusion of Wave 6 data did not result in any quota overages for the fishing year and would, therefore, not impact the final quotas. Using the best available data, the 2011 recreational harvest was estimated to be 16.581 million lb (7,456 mt), or approximately 61 percent of the TAL. Consistent with the Council's recommendation, this allows for a transfer of 4.772 million lb (2,164 mt) from the recreational sector to the commercial sector. This results in an adjusted commercial quota of 9.411 million lb (4,269 mt) and an RHL of 17.882 million lb (8,111 mt).
Two research projects that would utilize bluefish RSA quota have been preliminarily approved and forwarded to NOAA's Grants Management Division. A 105,000-lb (48-mt) RSA quota is preliminarily approved for use by these projects during 2011. Proportional adjustments of this amount to the commercial and recreational allocations results in a final commercial quota of 9.375 million lb (4,253 mt) and a final RHL of 17.813 million lb (8,080 mt).
The current recreational possession limit of up to 15 fish per person is maintained to achieve the RHL.
The final State commercial allocations of the 2011 commercial quota are shown in Table 1, based on the percentages specified in the FMP.
Amendment 1, implemented in 2000, established a rebuilding schedule to rebuild the bluefish stock biomass to its biomass target using a graduated step reduction in F over a 9-yr period. Amendment 1 specified a target F of 90 percent of F
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 31, 2011. Four comments were received. A summary and response to the concerns raised by the commenters are included below.
Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that an IRFA be prepared for all proposed rules,
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule does not duplicate, conflict, or overlap with any existing Federal rules.
The FRFA included in this final rule was prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 604(a), and incorporates the IRFA and a summary of analyses completed to support the action. No significant issues were raised by the public comment in response to the IRFA, other than the comment noted above. A public copy of the EA/RIR/IRFA is available from the Council (
The preamble to the proposed rule included a detailed summary of the analyses contained in the IRFA, and that discussion is not repeated here.
A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are contained in the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not repeated here.
Four comments were submitted on the proposed rule. One comment was received that commented on the economic analyses summarized in the IRFA and the economic impacts of the rule more generally, but did not raise significant issues. The response to this comment is provided above in the “Comments and Responses” section of this preamble. The remaining 3 comments did not refer to the economic analysis summarized in the IRFA or the economic impacts of the rule more generally. No changes were made to the final rule as a result of the comments received.
Small businesses operating in commercial and recreational (
An active participant in the commercial sector was defined as any vessel that reported having landed 1 or more lb (0.45 kg) in the Atlantic bluefish fishery in 2009 (the last year for which there are complete data). The active participants in the commercial sector were defined using two sets of data. The Northeast dealer reports were used to identify 688 vessels that landed bluefish in States from Maine through North Carolina in 2009. However, the Northeast dealer database does not provide information about fishery participation in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida. South Atlantic Trip Ticket reports were used to identify 908 vessels that landed bluefish in North Carolina, and 685 vessels that landed bluefish on Florida's east coast. Some of these vessels were also identified in the Northeast dealer data; therefore, double counting is possible. Bluefish landings in South Carolina and Georgia were near zero in 2009, representing a negligible proportion of the total bluefish landings along the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, this analysis assumed that no vessel activity for these two States took place in 2009. In recent years, approximately 2,063 party/charter vessels may have been active in the bluefish fishery and/or have caught bluefish.
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements are included in this final rule.
Specification of commercial quota, recreational harvest levels, and possession limits is constrained by the conservation objectives of the FMP, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The commercial quota contained in this final rule is 8 percent lower than the 2010 quota and 61 percent higher than actual 2010 bluefish landings. All affected States will receive reductions in their individual commercial quota allocation in comparison to their respective 2010 individual State allocations. However, the magnitude of the reduction varies depending on the State's respective percent share in the total commercial quota, as specified in the FMP.
The RHL contained in this final rule is approximately 4 percent lower than the RHL in 2010. The small reduction in RHL is a reflection of a declining trend in recreational bluefish harvest in recent years. Since the 2011 RHL is greater than the total estimated recreational bluefish harvest for 2010, it does not constrain recreational bluefish harvest below a level that the fishery is anticipated to achieve. The possession limit for bluefish will remain at 15 fish per person, so there should be no impact on demand for party/charter vessel fishing and, therefore, no impact on revenues earned by party/charter vessels. No negative economic impacts on the recreational fishery are anticipated.
The impacts on revenues associated with the proposed RSA quota were analyzed and are expected to be minimal. Assuming that the full RSA quota 105,000 lb (48 mt) is landed and sold to support the proposed research projects, then all of the participants in the fishery would benefit from the improved fisheries data yielded from each project.
Because both the RHL and the commercial quota being implemented in this final rule are slightly lower than the 2009 RHL and commercial quotas, and there will be no impacts from the RSA quota, the economic impacts are expected to be minimal.
Under alternative 2, which was not selected, a transfer of bluefish landings from the recreational to the commercial fishery would not occur. The absence of a quota transfer under this alternative would result in decreased commercial fishing opportunity compared to 2010, and is therefore associated with a higher probability of commercial revenue
The not chosen alternative 3 would be the least restrictive alternative (
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of Federal permits issued for the Atlantic bluefish fishery.
In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance of the 2011 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 28, 2011, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., May 31, 2011.
Josh Keaton, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2011 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 4,787 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (76 FR 11111, March 1, 2011).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2011 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 4,687 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 25, 2011.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend postal regulations to improve the administration of the Post Office closing and consolidation process. In addition, certain procedures employed for the discontinuance of Post Offices would be applied to the discontinuance of other types of retail facilities operated by Postal Service employees.
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2011.
Written comments should be mailed or delivered to the Manager, Customer Service Standardization, ATTN: Retail Discontinuance, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 6816, Washington, DC 20260–6816. Copies of all written comments will be available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, in the Postal Service Library, at the above address. Arrangements should be made in advance for inspection by contacting (202) 268–2900.
Annette Raney, (202) 268–4307.
The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 directs the Postal Service to establish and maintain postal facilities “of such character and in such locations that postal patrons throughout the nation will, consistent with reasonable economies of postal operations, have ready access to essential postal services.” 39 U.S.C. 403(b)(3). The 1976 amendments to the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA), codified in former section 404(b) of title 39 of the U.S. Code, require that the Postal Service provide adequate notice to customers of its intention to close or consolidate a Post Office
As part of ongoing efforts to rationalize its retail network, the Postal Service has undertaken a review of its regulations in 39 CFR part 241 to determine how the administration of the closing process can be improved. The Postal Service has identified various amendments to section 241.3 that would further the Plan's objective of improving the closing process. In addition, the Postal Service has determined, as a matter of policy, to apply the same discontinuance procedures to all retail facilities operated by Postal Service employees. These proposed measures are described below.
Section 404(d) of title 39, U.S. Code, applies only to the “closing or consolidation” of “post offices.” A Post Office is an organizational unit headed by a postmaster that provides retail and delivery services, and mail processing, to residents and businesses in the ZIP Code areas that comprise that office's exclusive delivery service area. In using the term “Post Office” in its technical sense for well over a century, Congress has recognized the need for postal officials to establish facilities, including Post Offices, stations, and branches, and also to discontinue them. The authority of Congress “to establish post offices,” U.S. Const. art. I, section 8, cl. 7, has been consistently delegated to the Postmaster General since the establishment of the Nation's postal system. See the discussion in
Numerous other postal statutes, not directly concerned with the establishment of postal facilities, have also illustrated the distinction between a station or branch and a Post Office. For example, former 39 U.S.C. 3524–3530, which set compensation levels for postmasters and other management employees, clearly show the administrative distinction between a Post Office, supervised by a postmaster, and its subordinate stations and branches, generally under the direction of an officer in charge. Similarly, in extending the protection of criminal statutes to postal facilities and operations, Congress was careful to apply those statutes not only to Post Offices, but to their subordinate service units.
Furthermore, Congress was well aware of the longstanding distinction between Post Offices and other types of postal facilities when it enacted 39 U.S.C. 404(d). In proposing the legislation which provided the foundation for current section 404(d), Senator Jennings Randolph expressed his opposition to the “indiscriminate closing of our rural and small town post offices” as well as to the decision “to create branches out of many post offices close to large cities.” To curtail such actions, he offered legislation requiring the Postal Service to “substantiate any proposal to change or eliminate independent post offices.”
As a matter of policy, the Postal Service recognizes that the functional differences among respective types of retail facilities staffed by postal employees may not be readily apparent to its retail customers. The Postal Service is mindful of comments that the Commission has provided to this effect in multiple contexts. Accordingly, many customers expect the same discontinuance procedures to apply for their local station as to the nearest independent Post Office. In the interest of transparency and responsiveness to customer needs, the Postal Service has concluded that it makes sense, as a policy matter, to propose the application of a single set of discontinuance procedures to postal employee-operated retail facilities. Although customers of contractor-operated retail facilities may also experience and expect comparable levels of service to those of postal employee-operated retail facilities, exigencies of contracting relationships make it generally impractical to harmonize their discontinuance procedures with the deliberative timeframe and procedures required for discontinuance of Postal Service-operated facilities.
The Postal Service recognizes that its proposed rule represents a policy change that significantly enhances transparency for its customers. The proposed rule does not, however, change the text or legislative history of 39 U.S.C. 404(d), which indicate Congress's intent that the statute should apply only to independent Post Offices and not to subordinate retail facilities. By proposing the application of uniform procedures to all Postal Service-operated retail facilities, the Postal Service would exceed the procedural requirements of its operating statute in the interests of public transparency and participation.
One consequence of this procedural harmonization is that the distinguishing factor would become the identity of the facility as operated by the Postal Service or a contractor, and not the administrative classification of affected facilities as Post Offices, stations, or branches. The conversion of an independent Post Office to a subordinate Postal Service-operated retail facility would no longer constitute a “consolidation” that triggers discontinuance proceedings, as it does today. The governing statute does not define “close” and “consolidate,” nor does it offer any guidance as to the distinction between the two terms. Postal Service facilities generally offer the same retail services to customers regardless of the facilities' administrative designation. Moreover, by applying the same discontinuance procedures to all Postal Service-operated retail facilities, the proposed rule would erase the effect of administrative designations on applicable discontinuance procedures. Therefore, the Postal Service does not consider it reasonable to continue applying discontinuance procedures to facility re-designations that do not entail any practical effect for customers. These changes would also harmonize with changes regarding administrative oversight of particular offices.
The proposed rule would not be retroactive. Therefore, until such time as any proposed changes are issued in a final rule and take effect, the proposed change in policy is not effective and would not affect the procedures currently in use for discontinuance of Postal Service retail facilities.
After an extensive review, the Postal Service is in the process of revising and updating its discontinuance procedures. This process significantly improves the internal timeframes, level of coordination, and approvals; it will maintain compliance with the statute and enhances public notice and involvement. The internal procedures for discontinuance actions are detailed in Handbook PO–101,
In addition, current regulations require at least a 90-day waiting period after posting of a final determination (if not appealed to the Commission) or after a Commission order upholding the final determination. The statute, however, only requires a 60-day period after posting of the final determination. Accordingly, the proposed rule would make the mandatory waiting period consistent with statutory requirements, although the Postal Service could, at its discretion, defer implementation.
Finally, the proposed rule would give explicit guidance to District Managers as to the circumstances that may justify commencement of a discontinuance study.
Section 241.1(a) and (b) would be updated to state the establishment requirements and classification system for Post Offices in accordance with
In keeping with the policy change concerning the scope of discontinuance procedures, the proposed rule would replace all references to “post office” in 39 CFR 241.3 with “USPS-operated retail facility” (or a similar term). A new subparagraph (a)(1)(ii) would be added to define “USPS-operated retail facility” as any Post Office, station, or branch that is operated by Postal Service employees, rather than by contractor personnel. Subparagraph (a)(1)(ii) would also define “contractor-operated retail facility” as any community post office, station, branch, or other facility offering retail postal services that is operated by a contractor, rather than by Postal Service employees.
Paragraph (a)(1) would be renumbered as subparagraph (a)(1)(i), and the scope of 39 CFR 241.3 would be defined in that subparagraph as applying to the closure or combination of any Postal Service-operated retail facility or facilities, or the replacement of such a facility with a contractor-operated retail facility. Corresponding changes would be made to paragraph (c)(2) with respect to the scope of a “consolidation” for purposes of 39 CFR 241.3. Subparagraph (a)(1)(iii) would be added to clarify that the reclassification of a Post Office as a Postal Service-operated station or branch, or the replacement of the former with the latter, is not a closing or consolidation subject to 39 CFR 241.3. Subparagraph (a)(1)(iii) would also clarify that discontinuance actions subject to 39 CFR 241.3 do not include staffing changes in the management of a post office such that it is staffed by a postmaster part-time or not at all and by another type of USPS employee during the remaining office hours.
Because the discontinuance procedures in 39 CFR 241.3 would apply beyond the extent legally required by 39 U.S.C. 404(d), paragraph (a)(2) would be renamed simply
Paragraph (a)(2), subparagraph (a)(3)(ii), and paragraph (c)(1) would be amended to allow for the possibility that discontinuance actions may result from initiatives or instructions by the responsible Vice President or from District Managers. Although many discontinuance actions will continue to be prompted by local personnel's assessment of prevailing conditions, this change would reflect the fact that discontinuance actions could also flow from nationwide requirements for retail facilities established by relevant Headquarters offices.
Subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) currently refers to the statutory right of persons served by an affected Post Office to appeal a discontinuance determination to the Commission. Although the Postal Service is proposing to extend the applicability of its post office discontinuance procedures to other types of Postal Service-operated retail facilities, the Postal Service does not have the power to alter the scope of the Commission's statutory jurisdiction. Therefore, the Postal Service proposes to add a sentence to subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) to clarify that, in cases where customers of an affected Postal Service-operated retail facility other than a post office file an appeal with the Commission, the Postal Service's Office of General Counsel will determine whether to raise jurisdictional defenses on a case-by-case basis, without waiving any objections as to the Commission's general lack of jurisdiction over such attempted appeals. In addition, subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) would be amended to incorporate the “mailbox rule” for receipt of appeals by the Commission, in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(6).
A new paragraph (a)(4) would be added to clarify the circumstances that may prompt a District Manager, Vice President, or a designee of either to initiate a discontinuance study. Permissible factors include postmaster vacancies, emergency suspensions, workload changes, drops in customer demand, availability of reasonable alternate access to postal services, and other special circumstances. Absent one or more such permissible circumstances, a deciding official of either may not initiate a discontinuance study because restroom facilities or building modifications for the handicapped are required, for reasons of compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651
The scope of paragraph (b)(4) would be extended to the replacement of any Postal Service-operated retail facility with another type of Postal Service-operated or contractor-operated retail facility.
Paragraph (b)(5) would be deleted, because the Publication that lists discontinued Post Offices referenced in that paragraph is obsolete.
Subparagraph (c)(4)(vii) would be reorganized to more accurately indicate the contents of the proposal notice. Clause (c)(4)(vii)(B) and subparagraph (f)(2)(ii) would be amended to require notice of appeal rights only for proposed discontinuances of post offices, in accordance with the scope of the Commission's statutory jurisdiction, as described in the analysis of subparagraph (a)(2)(iv) above.
Paragraph (d)(2) and the sample form included therein would be deleted. This form will be available to customers in accordance with these regulations. Current paragraphs (d)(3) and (4) would be renumbered (d)(2) and (3), respectively.
Paragraph (d)(3) (re-designated as (d)(2)) would be amended to clarify that a community meeting should be held unless the responsible Vice President or Area Manager of Delivery Programs Support instructs otherwise.
Subparagraph (d)(4)(v) (re-designated as (d)(3)(v)) would advise that certain personally identifiable information may be redacted from publicly accessible copies of the discontinuance record, in the interest of protecting personal privacy.
Subsection (e)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) would be amended to reflect the fact that discontinuance records are typically transmitted electronically, as well as forwarded in paper form. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the District Manager to certify accuracy of the record being transmitted, rather than to attach a separate certification as to the accuracy of copies.
Subparagraph (g)(1)(i) would be amended to remove the District Manager's obligation to notify the responsible Vice President of the date of posting.
The timeframe for implementation in the event that a final determination is not appealed, set forth in paragraph (g)(2), would be amended such that implementation can occur anytime after the statutorily required 60-day waiting period that commences the first day after posting of the final determination. Similarly, when the Commission upholds the Postal Service's final determination under subparagraph (g)(4)(i), the proposed rule would allow implementation anytime after issuance of the Commission's Order, so long as the 60-day waiting period after posting of the final determination is also satisfied. The current rule for both instances, that a discontinuance be effective on the first Saturday 90 days after the Commission's order, is not required by statute. Although the Postal Service may continue to apply a longer time period in some cases, the proposed rule would allow the Postal Service to do otherwise within the statutory framework.
Clause (g)(3)(ii)(B) would be amended to clarify that the Commission's final order and opinion need only be displayed at the Postal Service-operated retail facility subject to discontinuance for 30 days or until the effective date of the discontinuance, whichever is earlier.
The proposed rule would also make several minor changes to update terms. References to the former “Postal Rate Commission” would be replaced with “Postal Regulatory Commission,” in accordance with the renaming of that entity under Section 604 of the PAEA, Public Law 109–435, 120 Stat. 3241–3242. References to Administrative Support Manual (ASM) 352.6 would be updated to refer to chapter 4 of Handbook AS–353,
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites comments on the following proposed amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations.
An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 241 to reflect these changes will be published if the proposal is adopted.
Organization and functions (government agencies), Postal Service.
For the reasons set out in this document, the Postal Service proposes to amend 39 CFR part 241 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 241 is revised to read as follows:
39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 404, 410.
2. Revise § 241.1 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
3. Revise § 241.3 to read as follows:
(a)
(A) Replace a USPS-operated post office, station, or branch with a contractor-operated retail facility;
(B) Combine a USPS-operated post office, station, or branch with another USPS-operated retail facility, or
(C) Discontinue a USPS-operated post office, station, or branch without providing a replacement facility.
(ii) As used in this section, “USPS-operated retail facility” includes any Postal Service employee-operated post office, station, or branch, but does not include any station, branch, community post office, or other retail facility operated by a contractor. “Contractor-operated retail facility” includes any station, branch, community post office, or other facility, including a private business, offering retail postal services that is operated by a contractor, and does not include any USPS-operated retail facility.
(iii) The conversion of a post office into, or the replacement of a post office with, another type of USPS-operated retail facility is not a discontinuance action subject to this section. A change in the management of a post office such that it is staffed only part-time by a postmaster, or not staffed at all by a postmaster, but rather by another type of USPS employee, is not a discontinuance action subject to this section.
(2)
(i) The public must be given 60 days' notice of a proposed action to enable the persons served by a USPS-operated retail facility to evaluate the proposal and provide comments.
(ii) After public comments are received and taken into account, any final determination to close or consolidate a USPS-operated retail facility must be made in writing and must include findings covering all the required considerations.
(iii) The written determination must be made available to persons served by the USPS-operated retail facility at least 60 days before the discontinuance takes effect.
(iv) Within the first 30 days after the written determination is made available, any person regularly served by a Post Office subject to discontinuance may appeal the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission. Where persons regularly served by another type of USPS-operated retail facility subject to discontinuance file an appeal with the Postal Regulatory Commission, the General Counsel reserves the right to assert defenses, including the Commission's lack of jurisdiction over such appeals. For purposes of determining whether an appeal is filed within the 30-day period, receipt by the Commission is based on the postmark of the appeal, if sent through the mail, or on other appropriate documentation or indicia, if sent through another lawful delivery method.
(v) The Commission may only affirm the Postal Service determination or return the matter for further consideration but may not modify the determination.
(vi) The Commission is required to make any determination subject to 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) no later than 120 days after receiving the appeal.
(vii) The following table summarizes the notice and appeal periods defined by statute.
(3)
(i) Rules to ensure that the community's identity as a postal address is preserved.
(ii) Rules for consideration of a proposed discontinuance and for its implementation, if approved. These rules are designed to ensure that the reasons leading to discontinuance of a particular USPS-operated retail facility are fully articulated and disclosed at a stage that enables customer participation to make a helpful contribution toward the final decision.
(4)
(A) A postmaster vacancy;
(B) Emergency suspension of the USPS-operated retail facility due to cancellation of a lease or rental agreement when no suitable alternate quarters are available in the community, a fire or other natural disaster, severe health or safety hazards, challenge to the sanctity of the mail, or similar reasons;
(C) Earned workload below the minimum established level for the lowest non-bargaining (EAS) employee grade;
(D) Insufficient customer demand, evidenced by declining or low volume, revenue, revenue units, local business activity, or local population trends;
(E) The availability of reasonable alternate access to postal services for the community served by the USPS-operated retail facility; or
(F) The incorporation of two communities into one or other special circumstances.
(ii)
(A) Any claim that the continued operation of a building without handicapped modifications is inconsistent with the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151
(B) The absence of running water or restroom facilities;
(C) Compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651
(D) The operation of a small Post Office at a deficit.
(b)
(2)
(i) In a consolidation, the ZIP Code for the replacement contractor-operated retail facility is the ZIP Code originally assigned to the discontinued facility.
(ii) If the ZIP Code is changed and the parent or gaining USPS-operated retail facility covers several ZIP Codes, the ZIP Code must be that of the delivery area within which the facility is located.
(3)
(4)
(c)
(i) Must use the standards and procedures in § 241.3(c) and (d).
(ii) Must investigate the situation.
(iii) May propose the USPS-operated retail facility be discontinued.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(A) Contrast the services available before and after the proposed change;
(B) Describe how the changes respond to the postal needs of the affected customers; and
(C) Highlight particular aspects of customer service that might be less advantageous as well as more advantageous.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(d)
(i) Ask interested persons to provide written comments within 60 days, to a stated address, offering specific opinions and information, favorable or unfavorable, on the potential effect of the proposed change on postal services and the community.
(ii) State that copies of the proposal with attached optional comment forms are available in the affected USPS-operated retail facilities.
(iii) Provide a name and telephone number to call for information.
(2)
(i) If oral contacts develop views or information not previously documented, whether favorable or unfavorable to the proposal, the District Manager should encourage persons offering the views or information to provide written comments to preserve them for the record.
(ii) As a factor in making his or her decision, the District Manager may not rely on communications received from anyone unless submitted in writing for the record.
(3)
(i) The record must include all information that the District Manager considered, and the decision must stand on the record. No written information or views submitted by customers may be excluded.
(ii) The docket number assigned to the proposal must be the ZIP Code of the office proposed for closing or consolidation.
(iii) The record must include a chronological index in which each document contained is identified and numbered as filed.
(iv) As written communications are received in response to the public notice and invitation for comments, they are included in the record.
(v) A complete copy of the record must be available for public inspection during normal office hours at the USPS-operated retail facility proposed for discontinuance or at the USPS-operated retail facility providing alternative service, if the office to be discontinued was temporarily suspended, beginning no later than the date on which notice is posted and extending through the comment period. When appropriate, certain personally identifiable information, such as individual names or residential addresses, may be redacted from the publicly accessible copy of the record.
(vi) Copies of documents in the record (except the proposal and comment form) are provided on request and on payment of fees as noted in chapter 4 of Handbook AS–353,
(e)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) Transmit the revised proposal and the entire record to the responsible Vice President.
(B) Certify that all documents in the record are originals or true and correct copies.
(f)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(g)
(i) Provide notice of the Final Determination by posting a copy prominently in the USPS-operated retail facilities likely to be serving the affected customers. The date of posting must be noted on the first page of the posted copy as follows: “Date of posting.”
(ii) Ensure that a copy of the completed record is available for public inspection during normal business hours at each USPS-operated retail facility where the Final Determination is posted for 30 days from the posting date.
(iii) Provide copies of documents in the record on request and payment of fees as noted in chapter 4 of Handbook AS–353,
(2)
(3)
(ii)
(A) The District Manager must ensure that copies of all these documents are prominently displayed and available for public inspection in the USPS-operated retail facility to be discontinued. If the operation of that USPS-operated retail facility has been suspended, the District Manager must ensure that copies are displayed in the USPS-operated retail facilities likely to be serving the affected customers.
(B) All documents except the Postal Regulatory Commission's final order and opinion must be displayed until the final order and opinion are issued. The final order and opinion must be displayed at the USPS-operated retail facility to be discontinued for 30 days or until the effective date of the discontinuance, whichever is earlier. The final order and opinion must be displayed for 30 days in the USPS-operated retail facilities likely to be serving the affected customers.
(4)
(ii)
(A) Notice be provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section that the proposed discontinuance is determined not to be warranted or
(B) The matter be returned to an appropriate stage under this section for further consideration following such instructions as the responsible Vice President may provide.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on portions of a proposed State Implementation Plan revision submitted by New York that are intended to meet several Clean Air Act requirements for attaining the 0.08 part per million 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards. EPA is proposing to approve: the 2002 base year emission inventory and the projection year emissions, the motor vehicle emissions budgets used for planning purposes, the reasonable further progress plan, and the contingency measures as they relate to the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT and the Poughkeepsie 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas.
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA–R02–OAR–2010–1058, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Raymond Forde (
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed elements of New York's proposed comprehensive State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard)
EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed rulemaking and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical Support Document for this Proposal, which is available on line at
In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. The three 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas located in New York State are, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT nonattainment area, the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area, and the Jefferson County nonattainment area. The New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT nonattainment area is composed of the five boroughs of New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland. This is collectively referred to as the New York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA. The Poughkeepsie nonattainment area is composed of Dutchess, Orange and Putnam counties. On March 25, 2008 (73 FR 15672) EPA determined that Jefferson County attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
These designations triggered the Act's requirements under section 182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to submit a demonstration of attainment. To assist States in meeting the Act's requirements for ozone, EPA released an 8-hour ozone implementation rule in two Phases. EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule, published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951) and referred to as the Phase 1 Rule, specifies that States must submit these attainment demonstrations to EPA by no later than three years from the effective date of designation, that is, submit them by
Among other things, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment. For such areas, RACT plans were due by September 15, 2006 (40 CFR 51.912(a)(2)). The rules further require that modeling and attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, RACM analysis, projection year emission inventories, motor vehicle emissions budgets and contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a), and (c)).
After completing the appropriate public notice and comment procedures, New York made a series of submittals in order to address the Act's 8-hour ozone attainment requirements previously described in Section II.A.2. On September 1, 2006, New York submitted its proposed State-wide 8-hour ozone RACT SIP, which included a determination that many of the RACT rules currently contained in its SIP meet the RACT obligation for the 8-hour standard. On February 8, 2008, New York submitted two proposed comprehensive 8-hour ozone SIPs—one for the NYMA, entitled, “New York SIP for Ozone—Attainment Demonstration for New York Metro Area” and one for the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area, entitled, “New York SIP for Ozone—Attainment Demonstration for Poughkeepsie, NY Area”. On December 28, 2009 and January 26, 2011, New York supplemented its February 8, 2008 submittal. The submittals included the 2002 base year emissions inventory, projection year emissions, attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, RACM analysis, RACT analysis, contingency measures and on-road motor vehicle emission budgets. These proposed SIP revisions were subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs before adopting the plans and submitting them for EPA review and rulemaking action.
With respect to the Poughkeepsie area, EPA has evaluated its air quality monitoring data and has determined the Poughkeepsie area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. On December 7, 2009, EPA announced this determination in the
In addition to the previously mentioned 8-hour ozone SIP submittals, on April 4, 2008, New York submitted to EPA a request for a voluntary reclassification of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone nonattainment area from “moderate” to “serious” pursuant to section 181(b)(3) of the Act. Additionally, on June 14, 2010, New York submitted to EPA a Clean Data Petition for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. At this time, EPA is continuing to review collectively New York's request for a voluntary reclassification of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone nonattainment area and Clean Data Petition and plans to address New York's requests in a separate proposed action in the near future.
On July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43066), EPA conditionally approved the reasonably available control technology requirement as it relates to the entire State of New York, including the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT and the Poughkeepsie 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment areas and also conditionally approved the reasonably available control measure analysis as it relates to the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area.
An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by section 172(c)(3) of the Act. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory must contain volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NO
New York submitted its proposed and final 2002 base year emissions inventories. A summary of the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the NYMA, the Poughkeepsie area and for the entire State are included in Tables 1A–2B of this action.
The 2002 VOC and NO
Based on EPA's review, the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the NYMA, the Poughkeepsie area and the entire State includes essential data elements, source categories, sample calculations or report documentation to allow EPA to adequately determine if the inventory is accurate and complete. Consequently, New York's 2002 base year emissions inventory is consistent with the ozone base year emission inventory reporting requirements based on EPA guidance. Similarly, EPA has determined the 2008 projection year emissions inventory for the NYMA is consistent with the essential emission inventory reporting requirements. New York's 2002 base year inventories are consistent with the ozone base year emission inventory reporting requirements for the following reasons:
• The point and area source emissions inventory reports identify the actual activity data and emissions factors.
• Information on how rule effectiveness, control efficiencies and rule penetration, where appropriate, are applied and the associated sample calculations with numerical values are provided.
• Point and area source inventory documentation identifies emissions factors, activity levels, seasonal adjustment factors, and sample calculations. Referenced information for the input values to equations was identified.
• Point, area, non-road and on-road mobile source emissions are presented on a source by source category basis or on a county basis.
• The appropriate non-road and on-road emissions model are used.
• Annual and summertime daily point, area, non-road and on-road emissions are identified in the inventory.
New York's 2008 projection year inventory is consistent with the emission inventory reporting requirements for the following reasons:
• For projecting point, area, non-road and on-road mobile emissions, there is evidence the uncontrolled projection emission inventories were projected from 2002 to 2008 and controls applied correctly for future years.
• Point and area source inventory source documentation identify growth factors, emissions factors, activity levels, seasonal adjustment factors, and sample calculations. The referenced information for the input values into equations was included.
• Point, area, non-road and on-road projection inventories identify summary reports on a source by source basis.
With this information and documentation, EPA is able to verify the accuracy and representativeness of the base year and projection year emission inventories and whether the RFP plans are calculated correctly and result in sufficient emissions reductions towards achieving attainment.
A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventories were reviewed and the results of EPA's review are provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year for the NYMA and Poughkeepsie ozone nonattainment areas and the entire State and the 2008 projection year emission inventories for the NYMA area as the State used these inventories in developing the RFP plan.
New York also submitted 2008 and 2009 projection year inventories for the Poughkeepsie area and 2011 and 2012 projection year inventories for the NYMA (in support of the request for reclassification from “moderate” nonattainment to “serious”). EPA is deferring action on New York's reclassification request and the Poughkeepsie area proposed SIP revisions at this time.
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act and EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an RFP Plan for EPA review and approval into its SIP, that describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NO
The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value has been determined to be the 2002 adjusted base year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions are determined by the State using EPA's MOBILE6 on-road mobile source emissions modeling software. The FMVCP and RVP emission reductions are then removed from the base year inventory by the State, resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the adjusted base year inventory. These reductions are then subtracted from the base year inventory to establish the emissions target for the RFP milestone year (2008).
For moderate areas like those in New York, the Act requires emissions of ozone precursors be reduced by 15 percent over an initial six-year period. As discussed earlier, on November 9, 2005, EPA published the final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard (70 FR 71612), commonly referred to as the Phase 2 Rule. The Phase 2 Rule outlines the SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment or higher. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or higher must meet the RFP requirement pursuant to either section 182(b)(1), using VOC emission reductions, or section 172(c)(2), using VOC and NO
In the NYMA, EPA previously approved a 15 percent RFP plan for the entire nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard (67 FR 5170 (February 4, 2002)). EPA's Phase 2 Rule permits emissions reductions of either VOC and/or NO
It is important to note that section 182(b)(l) of the Act also requires the RFP plan for moderate areas to provide for reductions in VOC and NO
For the NYMA, New York included RFP plans for milestone years 2008, 2011 and 2012 consistent with a serious classification as requested by New York. In this notice, EPA will act on the 2008 RFP plan and defer action on the 2011 and 2012 RFP plans. Using the 2002 base year emission inventory, New York calculated an “adjusted baseline inventory” by removing the biogenic and non-creditable reductions (Federal
Based on Table 4, New York's VOC control plan meets the 15 Percent Plan reduction requirements. It results in 3.94 tons per day surplus.
Based on the RFP calculations included in New York's SIP submittal, New York's VOC 15 percent control plan results in 3.94 tons per day VOC emission reduction surplus in the NYMA. New York followed EPA's requirements and guidance in calculating the “adjusted baseline inventories,” and 2008 target level emissions, the total emission reductions (net of growth) needed from the 2008 uncontrolled projection inventory to reach the target levels for the 2008 milestone year was provided and therefore New York's RFP demonstration is consistent with the RFP emissions inventory reporting requirements.
In addition, New York's RFP plan is based on a 2002 base-year and projection emissions inventories, which as noted earlier in Section IV.A.3 are consistent with the emission inventory reporting requirements. New York identified how RFP will be achieved,
Based on the reasons mentioned above, EPA is proposing to approve New York's 2008 RFP plan for the NYMA.
For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, States must include in their submittals contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). Contingency measures are intended to achieve reductions over and beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. The Act does not preclude a State from implementing such measures before they are triggered. EPA interprets the Act to require sufficient contingency measures in the submittal, so that upon implementation of such measures, additional emissions reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted base year inventory would be achieved in the year after the failure has been identified. For a more detailed description of the contingency measures requirement please
New York identified an additional three percent (of the adjusted base year inventory) reduction of VOC emissions, or an equivalent combination of VOC and NO
New York identified the necessary quantity of emissions reductions for contingency. Those calculations are based on a 2002 base-year inventory and projection inventories, which as noted earlier in Section IV.A.3 are consistent with the emission inventory reporting requirements. All of the control measures identified in Table 4 and used to make the necessary reductions for contingency have been adopted and implemented by New York. EPA has determined that New York's SIP
Section 176(c)(1)(A) of the Act requires that Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas “conform to” the SIPs and that such actions will not: (a) Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area; (b) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any area; or (c) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or delay any required interim emissions reduction milestone in any area (section 176(c)(1)(B) of the Act). Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with State air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation plans (“plans”) and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit projects are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (“budgets”) contained in a SIP. The General Conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93, subpart B) requires actions initiated by other Federal agencies in nonattainment and maintenance areas to also conform to the SIP. One option for Federal agencies to demonstrate general conformity is to meet facility-wide emissions budgets that are specified in the SIP. New York has not chosen to establish facility-wide emissions budgets for any major Federal facilities in the SIP.
In its February 8, 2008 SIP submittals, New York established 2008, 2011, and 2012 on-road motor vehicle emission budgets for the NYMA 8-hour moderate ozone nonattainment area. Table 5 lists the New York on-road motor vehicle emissions budgets.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2008 RFP on-road motor vehicle emissions budgets established for the NYMA because these budgets are based on a 2002 base year emissions inventory that is consistent with the emission inventory reporting requirements and EPA guidance, as discussed in Section IV.A. A more detailed discussion of how the emission inventories were reviewed and the results of these reviews are provided in section IV.A and the TSD for this action. EPA is also proposing approval of these budgets because EPA has now completed its review of the overall RFP plan which demonstrates the required percent reductions needed for the plan approval. The 2008 RFP on-road budgets are consistent with the overall RFP plan. EPA is deferring action on the 2011 and 2012 motor vehicle emission budgets for the NYMA, submitted by New York in support of its reclassification request, until action is taken on the submitted attainment demonstration for this area.
EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the following elements which are required by the Act: 2002 base year emissions inventory, the 2008 ozone projection year emissions inventories, the 2008 motor vehicle emissions budgets used for planning purposes, the 2008 RFP plan, and the contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP plan milestone as they apply to the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area. These elements were submitted to EPA by New York in a package entitled “New York SIP for Ozone—Attainment Demonstration for New York Metro Area,” dated February 8, 2008 and supplemented on December 28, 2009 and January 26, 2011.
EPA is also proposing to approve: The 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Poughkeepsie 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area and the State-wide 2002 base year emissions inventory, submitted by New York on February 8, 2008 and supplemented on December 28, 2009 and January 26, 2011.
EPA is not taking action at this time on New York's attainment demonstration, reclassification request (and relevant SIP elements associated with a reclassification) or Clean Data Petition for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone moderate nonattainment area, but will do so in one or more proposed actions in the near future.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Plan availability.
This document announces the availability of the Final NHTSA Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013 (Priority Plan) in Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0108. This Priority Plan is an update to the Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2009–2011 (October 2009 Plan) that was announced in the November 9, 2009, edition of the
Joseph Carra, Director of Strategic Planning and Integration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W45–336, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
On November 9, 2009, NHTSA published a Final Notice in the
This plan is an internal management tool as well as a means to communicate to the public NHTSA's highest priorities to meet the Nation's motor vehicle safety challenges. Among them are programs and projects involving rollover crashes, children (both inside as well as just near vehicles), motorcoaches and fuel economy that must meet Congressional mandates or Secretarial commitments. Since these are expected to consume a significant portion of the agency's rulemaking resources, they affect the schedules of the agency's other priorities listed in this plan. This plan lists the programs and projects the agency anticipates working on even though there may not be a rulemaking planned to be issued by 2013, and in several cases, the agency doesn't anticipate that the research will be done by the end of 2013. Thus, in some cases the next step would be an agency decision in 2013 or 2014.
For purposes of apprising the public on the status of progress relative to the efforts delineated in the October 2009 Plan, NHTSA has included in the current Priority Plan a section (Section V) that compares the October 2009 Plan to the current Priority Plan.
Interested persons may obtain a copy of the plan, “Final Vehicle Safety Rulemaking and Research Priority Plan 2011–2013,” by downloading a copy of the document. To download a copy of the document, go to
49 U.S.C. 30111, 30117, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
This proposed rule would establish procedures and timing for specifying annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for western Pacific fisheries. The proposed rule is procedural in nature, and is intended to help NMFS end and prevent overfishing, rebuild overfish stocks, and achieve optimum yield.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 16, 2011.
Comments on this proposed rule, identified by 0648–AY93, may be sent to either of the following addresses:
•
•
This proposed rule would implement the recommendations of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in Amendment 1 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) for the Pacific Remote Islands Areas (PRIA), Amendment 2 to the American Samoa FEP, Amendment 2 to the Mariana Archipelago FEP, Amendment 3 to the Hawaii FEP, and Amendment 4 to the Western Pacific Pelagic FEP. The amendments establish a procedural framework (mechanism) that the Council would use to set ACLs and AMs in the western Pacific, and are consolidated into a single document. The amendments are currently under review by the Secretary of Commerce. The amendment document, which contains an environmental assessment and background information on this proposed rule, is available from
Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR, Sustainable Fisheries, 808–944–2108.
In 2006, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to include provisions to help NMFS prevent and end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, the objectives of National Standard 1. Specifically, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that regional fishery management councils develop fishery management plans that include a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level such that overfishing does not occur and that does not exceed the fishing level recommendation of a council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). AMs are also required to prevent ACLs from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overage of an ACL should it occur. Currently, the FEPs do not contain ACLs or AMs, nor do they contain a procedure by which to establish ACLs or AMs; the Council addressed this issue in the amendments to the FEPs, which this proposed rule would implement.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for ACLs and AMs does not apply to fisheries for stocks that are subject to international fishery agreements in which the U.S. participates, or for species with life cycles of approximately one year. These stocks are excepted either because ACLs and AMs are provided for by the international agreements (and establishing ACL mechanisms and AMs on just the U.S. portion of the fishery is unlikely to have any impact on ending overfishing and rebuilding), or because ACLs or AMs are unnecessary or impractical for short-lived species. Accordingly, this proposed rule contains these two types of exceptions. Even though they are exempt from the ACL and AM requirements, the FEPs for international stocks must identify status determination criteria and maximum sustainable yield, and for short life cycle stocks, the FEPs must identify status determination criteria, maximum sustainable yield, optimum yield, and acceptable biological catch (ABC) with a related control rule.
ACLs and AMs would also not be required for species classified in a fishery management plan as “ecosystem component species,” which this rule would define as “any western Pacific [management unit species] that the Council has identified to be, generally, a non-target species, not determined to be subject to overfishing, approaching overfished, or overfished, not likely to become subject to overfishing or overfished, and generally not retained for sale or personal use.” Because ecosystem component species are not in danger of being overfished, management measures are not necessary for them, and NMFS would exempt these species from the ACLs and AMs. While this rule would establish the procedures for the Council to use to establish the ACLs and AMs, the actual ACLs and AMs will be specified through future action.
To comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 guidelines, this proposed rule would implement a mechanism for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs, possibly including multi-year ACLs, and AMs in western Pacific fisheries. Briefly, the mechanism requires the Council to recommend an ACL to NMFS at least two months before the start of a fishing year. The ACL recommendation may include a downward adjustment to account for the fishery exceeding the ACL in the previous year. The Council's recommendation should be based on the SSC's recommendation of the ABC for the subject species or fishery, and it may not exceed the SSC's recommendation. At least one month before the fishing year starts, NMFS will announce the proposed ACL and request public comments. Before the start of the fishing year, NMFS will notify fishermen and the public of the final ACL specification.
NMFS monitors the fishery on an ongoing basis throughout the fishing year. When an ACL is projected to be reached during the year, NMFS will notify fishermen and the public that fishing for the regulated stock will be restricted through one or more inseason accountability measures to ensure that the ACL is not exceeded. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, closing the fishery, closing specific areas, changing bag limits, or otherwise restricting effort or catch. Any inseason restriction will generally remain in effect until the end of the fishing year. If inseason monitoring or subsequent data analyses indicate that an ACL was exceeded in the previous fishing year, the Council may recommend that NMFS reduce the ACL for the subsequent year by the amount of the overage. In determining whether an overage adjustment is necessary, the Council would consider the magnitude of the overage and its impact on the affected stock's status. Additionally, if an ACL is exceeded more than once in a four-year period, the Council will re-evaluate the mechanism of ACLs and AMs, and adjust the system, as necessary, to improve its performance and effectiveness.
As described in the amendment, the Council's SSC would use a tier of control rules, based on the availability and quality of data about the stocks, to determine the appropriate ABC, which the Council would, in turn, use to identify appropriate ACLs and AMs. For example, if it has supporting data, the mechanism would allow the SSC to base ABC on a probability of overfishing that is less than 50 percent when biological reference points (
The Council and NMFS would use the mechanism implemented through this proposed rule to specify ACLs and AMs
To be considered, comments on this proposed rule must be received by May 16, 2011, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEPs for American Samoa, Hawaii, the Marianas, PRIA, and western Pacific pelagic fisheries, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as follows:
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council proposes to amend its fishery ecosystem plans to establish a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits (ACL), and accountability measures (AM) to prevent an ACL from being exceeded, and correct or mitigate any overages of ACLs. The proposed rule would codify the ACL and AM mechanism, including the procedures for, and timing of, specifications, and exceptions to ACL and AM requirements. The proposed rule does not specify any ACL or AM for western Pacific fisheries. Rather, the rule is purely administrative in nature, and only applies to NMFS' and the Council's internal procedures to determine appropriate ACLs and AMs. If adopted, the rule would not add, remove or modify any existing rights or obligations of any parties, including business entities of any size. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have any impact on small entities, organizations or government jurisdictions as the action is primarily administrative in nature and would only establish a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs for Federal fisheries.
NMFS will begin specifying ACLs and AMs for each fishery that requires them using the proposed notice-and-comment mechanism starting in fishing year 2011. When fishery-specific ACLs and AMs are proposed through subsequent rulemaking, NMFS will assess each proposed specification for compliance with all applicable laws, including any relevant impacts on small businesses, organizations and small government jurisdictions, and will prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for that action, if warranted.
For these reasons, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Annual catch limits, Accountability measures, Fisheries, Fishing, Western and central Pacific.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 665 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority for part 665 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In part 665, add a new § 665.4 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2) No later than 30 days before the start of a fishing year, the Regional Administrator shall publish in the
(3) No later than the start of a fishing year, the Regional Administrator shall publish in the
(f)
(1) The notice will include an advisement that fishing for that stock or stock complex will be restricted beginning on a specified date, which shall not be earlier than 7 days after the date of filing the notice for public inspection at the Office of the
(2) It is unlawful for any person to conduct fishing in violation of the restrictions specified in the notification issued pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
3. In § 665.12 add the definitions of “Ecosystem component species” and “SSC” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
4. In § 665.15 add a new paragraph (u) to read as follows:
(u) Fail to comply with the restrictions specified in the notification issued pursuant to § 665.4(f)(1), in violation of § 665.15(f)(2).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
Through this action, NMFS proposes to prohibit purse seine fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and to prohibit pelagic longline fishing within 30 nautical miles (nm) of the CNMI. The purse seine prohibition is intended to reduce the potential for localized fish depletion by purse seine fishing, limit catch competition and gear conflicts between the purse seine fishery and the Guam and CNMI pelagic longline and trolling fleets, and reduce the potential impacts of purse seine fishing on the recruitment of juvenile bigeye tuna. By establishing a longline fishing prohibited area around the CNMI, NMFS intends to reduce the potential for localized fish depletion by longline fishing, and to limit catch competition and gear conflicts between the developing CNMI longline fishery and the CNMI pelagic trolling fleet. This rule also would make several administrative clarifications to the pelagic fishing regulations.
NMFS must receive comments on the proposed rule by May 16, 2011.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared Amendment 2 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (FEP), which describes the issues, and includes an environmental assessment (EA). Copies of Amendment 2 and EA are available from
You may send a comment on this proposed rule, identified by 0648–AW67, to either of the following addresses:
•
•
Toby Wood, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808–944–2234.
Pelagic fisheries in the U.S. western Pacific are managed under the Pelagics FEP. The Council is concerned that any influx of purse seine fishing near the islands of Guam and the CNMI might affect the sustained participation by local fishing communities in those areas, which are made up almost exclusively of small vessel trollers that have a strong cultural and economic dependence on inshore pelagic catches. Similarly, the Council is also concerned that the CNMI troll fishery is vulnerable to potential catch competition and gear conflicts with the growing CNMI longline fleet in areas where both fleets fish.
In response to these concerns, and pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Council prepared Amendment 2 to the Pelagic FEP in the Mariana Archipelago. In Amendment 2, the Council proposes to prohibit purse seine fishing in the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI, and to prohibit pelagic longline fishing within 30 nm (55.6 km) of the CNMI. If Amendment 2 is adopted, this rule would implement the Council's recommendations.
The following section describes the fisheries that would be affected by this rule, if it is promulgated. Because 2008 is the most recent year for which we have comprehensive information about all fisheries considered, we use 2008 as the baseline year for analyzing the potential effects of this proposed rule. Although more recent troll, longline, and purse seine fishery information has become available, including this information would not change the analysis, management objectives, or measures of the Council's proposed action.
Pelagic fisheries in the Mariana Islands (Guam and the CNMI) consist of small trolling fleets and several pelagic longline vessels. Purse seine vessels have been based in Guam, but have not
Guam's pelagic fishery consists mostly of small trolling boats that are either towed to launching sites or berthed in marinas that fish in local waters. Most of these boats are shorter than 33 ft (10 m) in length overall (LOA), and are usually owned and operated by fishermen who earn a living outside of fishing, even though most fishermen sell a portion of their catch. Estimated annual landings of pelagic fish in Guam have ranged between 301,504 to 935,809 lb (136 to 424 mt) over the past 20 years. In 2008, landings of pelagic fish—primarily of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, mahimahi (dorado), wahoo, and blue marlin—totaled 551,504 lb (250 mt), with an estimated total ex-vessel value of $247,188. Additionally, the pelagic fishing fleet landed an estimated 296,121 lb (134 mt) of skipjack tuna and 19,899 (9 mt) of yellowfin tuna. For 2008, Guam's pelagic fishery consisted of 385 boats: Non-charter boats made 5,057 fishing trips, and charter boats made 1,891 trips.
Trolling is also the primary fishing method in the CNMI pelagic fishery. CNMI's troll fleet consists primarily of vessels shorter than 24 ft (7.3 m) in LOA, with a travel radius from Saipan of about 20 miles (32 km). The number of fishermen landing pelagic fish in the CNMI in the past 20 years has ranged from 114 in 1996 to 47, as of 2008. The primary target for the CNMI troll fleet is skipjack tuna. In 2008, skipjack tuna landings comprised over 157,708 lb (71 mt), or three-quarters of total pelagic landings, and was valued at nearly $280,000 ex-vessel. The CNMI troll fleet also catches yellowfin tuna and mahimahi on a seasonal basis. In 2008, this fleet landed 16,344 lb (7.4 mt) of yellowfin tuna, and 11,169 lb (5 mt) of mahimahi.
Pelagic longline fishing in the Mariana Archipelago targets bigeye and yellowfin tuna. U.S. longline vessels range in length from 40 to 100 ft (12 to 30 m) in LOA, and a single fishing trip can last for more than 30 days. Longline gear can range in length from one to 60 miles (1.6 to 96.6 km). Interest in this fishery has been variable in recent years. Four permitted longline vessels are based in the CNMI and one is based in Guam. As recently as 2010, three longline vessels have been actively fishing in the EEZ around the CNMI, but no longline vessels have reported landings from the EEZ around Guam since 2000. In 1992, the Council proposed and NMFS implemented a 50 nm (92.6 km) longline prohibited area around Guam to prevent gear conflicts between the developing longline fishery and the troll fishery, and to assist in preserving the local availability of important pelagic troll caught species (57 FR 45989, October 6, 1992).
CNMI longline vessels target yellowfin and bigeye tunas and retain incidental catches of albacore, blue marlin, mahimahi, skipjack tuna, and spearfish. From 2007 through 2010, these vessels made approximately 30 trips in the EEZ around the CNMI. Section 402 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act generally prohibits the release of confidential fishery information that is submitted to the Secretary of Commerce in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is identifiable to an individual submitter. Because of the limited size of the longline fleet in the Marianas, NMFS is prohibited from releasing fishery information, as such a release could be used to identify the activities of specific vessels. Accordingly, proxy information about catch from the nearby Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) fishery, and the operating characteristic of longliners in American Samoa are used to analyze fishing impacts.
Between 2007 and 2008, activity by the U.S. purse seine fleet in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) increased from 21 U.S. vessels to 38, respectively. The current U.S. purse seine fleet in the WCPO stands at 36 vessels. These vessels range in length from 191 to 293 ft (58 to 89 m). Fish-carrying capacities range from approximately 800 to 1,500 mt (1.8 to 3.3 million lb). The U.S. purse seine catch in the western Pacific is made on the high seas, in foreign EEZs under licenses issued in accordance with the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTA), and in the U.S. EEZ around American Samoa and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (
No U.S. purse seine catches have been recorded from the EEZ around the CNMI, and no U.S. purse seine catches have been recorded from the EEZ around Guam since 1980. To estimate the potential impact of U.S. purse seine fishing in the Marianas, Japan's purse seine statistics (as the purse seine fishery operating closest to the Mariana Archipelago) were used as a proxy for potential U.S. purse seine catches from the EEZ around the Marianas. The average daily skipjack and yellowfin tuna catches by Japan purse seine fishery from 2004 to 2006 were 57,320 lb (26 mt) and 6,613 lb (3 mt), respectively. This daily amount is approximately 13 and 18 percent of the total annual catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna, respectively, landed in 2008 by the longline and troll fleets of Guam and the CNMI.
The Council is concerned about the potential impacts, such as localized stock depletion, on other pelagic fisheries if U.S. purse seine vessels begin fishing in the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI. Localized fish depletion occurs when a stock in a small area is reduced by the removal of large amounts of fish, thereby temporarily depleting the availability of the stock to fishing activity or other predators in that area. Some studies suggest that temporary, localized depletion could occur when purse seines take large quantities of fish.
In recent years the competition for skipjack tuna among multi-national purse seine fleets in the WCPO has increased, and as a result U.S. purse seiners could turn to fishing grounds such as the EEZ around the Mariana Archipelago, where foreign fishing is prohibited, to increase their catch. The recent closures of two high seas fishing areas and restrictions placed on the use of fish aggregating devices by the Western and Central Pacific Fishery Commission could also encourage U.S. purse seiners to fish around the Marianas. Additionally, the Council is concerned that the President's establishment in 2009 of three new Marine National Monuments in the Marianas, Rose Atoll, and the Pacific Remote Islands Areas, which include large areas now closed to commercial fishing, could displace purse seine fishing into the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI.
If purse seine effort shifts to areas fished by the troll and longline fisheries of Guam and the CNMI, those smaller vessels could experience reduced catch rates, or have to travel further to maintain catch rates, resulting in lost revenue and possible safety-at-sea issues. Reduced catch rates could negatively impact ex-vessel revenue of the troll and longline fleets. To maintain catches or catch rates, vessels may need to fish longer or travel farther to find more abundant fish populations. These factors could increase costs associated with fishing, such as fuel, food, crew time, and ice, while also increasing safety risks for small vessels that would have to fish farther from shore and for longer intervals.
Although the purse seine fleet is highly mobile and can harvest large quantities of fish, it does not (with the current fishing technologies) target mature fish. While targeting skipjack tuna, particularly through the use of fish aggregating devices, purse seines also catch juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Bigeye tuna is currently subject to overfishing, and the harvest of juvenile bigeye by purse seines contributes to recruitment overfishing. The impacts from an increase in juvenile catch of bigeye tuna could reduce the number of mature fish in the population, thereby decreasing the number of fish reproduced. This reduction could also decrease the future availability of adult fish for fisheries that target adult bigeye tuna.
The Council is also concered that any future expansion of longline fishing around the Mariana Archipelago could result in adverse impacts to the CNMI troll fleet. If the number of CNMI-based longline vessels increases and they move into areas traditionally utilized by the local troll fleet (typically within 30 nm (55.6 km) of shore), there is potential for gear conflict and catch competition between the two fleets. Longline gear can be up to 60 nm (111 km) long, deployed horizontally at depth of 25 to 100 meters with floats at the surface, and drifting with the current. Troll vessels drag gear through the water column, and could snag or cut shallow longline gear or lines attached to floats. Consequently, troll vessels may need to move to other areas that do not have longline gear in the area to avoid these interactions.
Since tunas tend to aggregate around objects in the water, offshore banks and reefs are a popular place for fishing activity by the troll fleet. Accordingly, competition for fish can be concentrated in these areas when fish are available. By including those banks and reefs within the proposed prohibited area, the Council plans to reduce the potential for catch competition, and the related stock losses. at these locations.
The Council is also concerned that increased longline fishing could take yellowfin tuna and other species on which the troll fishery depends, causing enough localized depletion to impact trolling catch rates. In addition, any growth of the longline fishery could result in increased costs (
Due to these concerns, the Council has recommended, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the following measures. These recommendations are precautionary approaches intended to reduce temporary localized depletion, catch competition, and gear conflicts to sustain local troll and longline fisheries, and to limit the potential impacts of purse seine fishing on recruitment of juvenile bigeye tuna. To address their concerns about the potential impact of purse seine fishing on the troll and longline fisheries in the Marianas, the Council recommended prohibiting U.S. purse seine vessels from fishing within the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI. To address the Council's concerns about the potential impact of uncontrolled expansion in the CNMI longline fishery, the Council recommended a prohibition on longline fishing within 30 nm (55.6 km) of the islands (
Additionally, if implemented, this rule would make administrative housekeeping changes to the pelagic fishing regulations, unrelated to Amendment 2. All prohibited areas would be grouped into one section, making the area requirements easier for fishermen and the general public to find. Existing longline prohibited areas (in Hawaii and Guam) and the American Samoa large vessel prohibited areas for pelagic fishing would be combined into 50 CFR 665.806. The proposed purse seine and CNMI longline prohibited areas would also be added to that section.
As described above, the Council's approach under Amendment 2 is precautionary. NMFS notes that no U.S. purse seine catches have been recorded from the EEZ surrounding the CNMI, and no U.S. purse seine catches have been recorded from the EEZ surrounding Guam since 1980. NMFS also notes that there is only limited longline activity currently being conducted out of the Mariana Archipelago. Accordingly, NMFS specifically invites public comments addressing whether the action is “necessary and appropriate” according to MSA 303(a)(1) to accomplish its identified conservation and management objectives, and the state of the science supporting the action.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The analysis follows:
“This rule would prohibit purse seine fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and would prohibit longline fishing within 30 nm (55.6 km) of the CNMI. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule. Briefly, the purse seine prohibition is intended to reduce the potential for localized fish depletion by purse seine fishing, limit catch competition and gear conflicts between the purse seine fishery and the Guam and CNMI pelagic longline and trolling fleets, and reduce the potential impacts of purse seine fishing on the recruitment of juvenile bigeye tuna. The longline fishing prohibited area around the CNMI, is intended to reduce the potential for localized fish depletion by longline fishing, and to limit catch competition and gear conflicts between the developing CNMI longline fishery and the CNMI pelagic trolling fleet.
This proposed rule consists of three actions:
1. Prohibit pelagic longline fishing within 30 nm (55.6 km) of the CNMI;
2. Prohibit pelagic purse seine fishing within the EEZ around the CNMI; and
3. Prohibit pelagic purse seine fishing within the EEZ around Guam.
Action 1 would impact the longline vessels in and operating from the CNMI. This is a relatively small fishery; the number of permits issued to vessel owners in this fishery in recent years has ranged from four to eight. Fishing vessels are considered to be small entities by the SBA if they are independently-owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million. Although exact revenue data for the CNMI longline vessel group are not available, similarly-situated vessels operating in Hawaii earn an average of less than $4 million per year. Using this figure as a proxy for annual revenue, this analysis assumes the affected vessels are small entities.
Prohibiting fishing within 30 nm (55.6 km) of shore could require vessels to spend more time and fuel traveling offshore before fishing, and could prevent catching any target fish stocks that might occur within the prohibited area. However, logbook information suggests that the affected longline vessels currently fish farther than 30 nm (55.6 km) from shore. Action 1 would not modify their current fishing practices and, therefore, is not expected to impact the affected vessels' revenue.
Additionally, Action 1 could benefit the local CNMI troll fleet, which fishes closer to shore than longliners, by reducing the likelihood of catch competition and gear conflict between trolling and longlining. In 2008, the CNMI troll fleet consisted of 47 boats, most of which were less than 24 ft (7 m) long. That year, these boats made 989 trips, landing 197,013 lb (89.4 mt) of fish, and earned total ex-vessel revenue of $317,330, or $6,752 per vessel. Accordingly, these vessels are all considered small entities under the RFA. This rule, however, would not modify these vessels' activities. The rule is intended as a precautionary measure to protect and conserve the fish stocks and fishing resources around Guam and the CNMI, and if implemented would reduce the risk that local stocks would decline due to longline fishing. Additionally, Action 1 would reduce the potential for gear conflicts between CNMI trollers and the longline fleet.
Because Action 1 of this rule is not expected to alter the current fishing practices of the longline fleet, and because it is expected to benefit the CNMI troll fleet as well as the local fishery resources, Action 1, if implemented, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If implemented, Actions 2 and 3 could potentially affect purse seine fishing vessels. The average 1998 gross revenue per purse seine vessel was $4.7 million, equivalent to $6.1 million in 2009 dollars. Therefore, most or all of the 38 purse seine licenses in 2009–10 were held by large entities. NMFS recognizes that newly-permitted vessels may experience lower revenues during the start-up period, and may constitute small entities under the RFA, but it is expected that the purse seine provisions of the rule will only affect large entities.
Similar to the effects of Action 1, prohibiting fishing within the EEZ could force any Guam- or CNMI-based purse seine vessels to spend more time and fuel traveling beyond the EEZ before fishing, and could prevent catching any target fish stocks that occur within the EEZ. However, the U.S. purse seine fishery has never operated in the EEZ around Guam and the CNMI, nor it is expected to in the near future. Accordingly, these small entities will likely not be affected by these actions.
Based on the above analysis indicating that few or no potentially affected vessels currently fish in the areas closed by this proposed rule because this rule is a precautionary measure meant to conserve local fisheries and fish stocks, NMFS has determined that the proposed rule would not result in “a substantial economic impact to a significant number of small entities.”
Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Longline, Northern Mariana Islands, Prohibited areas, Purse seine.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapter VI is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 665 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
2. In § 665.800, add a definition of “Purse seine” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
3. In § 665.802, revise paragraphs (v), (w), and (xx) to read as follows:
(v) Use longline gear to fish within a longline fishing prohibited area in violation of § 665.806, except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under §§ 665.17 or 665.807.
(w) Use a purse seine to fish within a purse seine fishing prohibited area in
(xx) Use a large vessel to fish for western Pacific Pelagic MUS within an American Samoa large vessel prohibited area in violation of § 665.806, except as allowed pursuant to an exemption issued under §§ 665.17 or 665.818.
4. Revise § 665.806 to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) From October 1 through the following January 31 each year, the MHI longline fishing prohibited area is the portion of the EEZ around Hawaii bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order listed:
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(c)
5. Revise the section heading in § 665.807 to read as follows:
6. Remove and reserve § 665.817.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The North Central Idaho RAC will meet in Grangeville, Idaho. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to select projects for 2012. The authority of the RAC to recommend projects expires on September 30, 2011, so they need to complete recommendations for two year's worth of projects in the next few months.
The meeting will be held on April 14, 2011, at 10 a.m. (PST).
The meeting will be held at the Nez Perce National Forest Supervisors Office, 104 Airport Road, Grangeville, Idaho. Written comments should be sent to Laura Smith at 104 Airport Road in Grangeville, Idaho 83530. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
Laura Smith, Designated Forest Official at 208–983–5143.
The meeting is open to the public. A public forum will begin at 3:15 p.m. (PST) on the first meeting day. The following business will be conducted: Comments and questions from the public to the committee. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Huron-Manistee Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Mio, Michigan. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to hold the first meeting of the newly formed committee.
The first meeting will be held Thursday April 21, 2011, 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Mio Ranger Station, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, MI. Written comments should be sent to Huron-Manistee National Forests RAC, c/o Mio Ranger Station, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, MI 48647. 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 request to inspect comments received at the Mio Ranger Station.
Steven Goldman, Designated Federal Official or Carrie Scott, Natural Resource Planner, Huron-Manistee National Forests, Mio Ranger Station, 107 McKinley Road, Mio, MI 48647; (989) 826–3252.
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: (1) Introduction of all committee members, alternate members and Forest Service personnel; (2) Selection of a committee chairperson; (3) Review of materials explaining the processes for recommending and considering Title II projects; and (4) Public comment.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Custer and Gallatin National Forest's Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Columbus, Montana. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose is to hold the first meeting of the newly formed committee.
The meeting will be held on May 3, 2011, and will begin at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Columbus City Hall, Court Room, 408 East 1st Avenue North, 2nd Floor, Columbus, MT. Written comments should be sent to Babete Anderson, Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, Billings, MT 59105. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, Billings, MT 59105. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 406–657–6205 ext 239.
Babete Anderson, RAC coordinator, USDA, Custer National Forest, 1310 Main Street, Billings, MT 59105; (406) 657–6205 ext 239; E-mail
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Mountain Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Introductions of all committee members, replacement members and Forest Service personnel. (2) Selection of a chairperson by the committee members. (3) Receive materials explaining the process for considering and recommending Title II projects; and (4) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Umatilla National Forest, Southeast Washington Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Pomeroy, Washington. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, as amended, (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Purpose of the meeting is to conduct general business review proposed projects. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on April 28, 2011, and will begin at 7 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Pomeroy Ranger District Office, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA. Written comments should be sent to Monte Fujishin, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. Comments may also be sent via email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 509–843–1891 to facilitate entry into the building.
Monte Fujishin, RAC Designated Federal Official, USDA, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347; (509) 843–1891; E-mail
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Idaho, Washington Relay Service at 1–800–377–3529, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review of past projects and progress of continuing projects. (2) Discussion and selection proposed projects for 2012 and if there are participants. (3) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Umatilla National Forest, Columbia County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Dayton, Washington. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, as amended, (Pub. L 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Purpose of the meeting is to conduct general business review proposed projects. This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on May 9, 2011, and will begin at 7 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Post Office, 202 South Second Street, Dayton, WA. Written comments should be sent to Monte Fujishin, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 509–843–1891 to facilitate entry into the building.
Monte Fujishin, RAC Designated Federal Official, USDA, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347; (509) 843–1891; E-mail
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Idaho, Washington Relay Service at 1–800–377–3529, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Review of past projects and progress of continuing projects. (2) Discussion and selection proposed projects for 2012 and if there are participants, (3) Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of meeting.
Friday, April 8, 2011; 9:30 a.m. EDT.
624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.
This meeting is open to the public.
Portions of this meeting may be held in closed session.
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376–8591. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376–8105 or at
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via e-mail at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David H. Galler, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE–50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
The Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (Form BE–15) obtains sample data on the financial structure and operations of U.S. affiliates of foreign investors. The data are needed to provide reliable, useful, and timely measures of foreign direct investment in the United States, assess its impact on the U.S. economy, and based upon this assessment, make informed policy decisions regarding foreign direct investment in the United States. The data are used to derive annual estimates of the operations of U.S. affiliates of foreign investors, including their balance sheets; income statements; property, plant, and equipment; employment and employee compensation; merchandise trade; sales of goods and services; taxes; and research and development activity. In addition, data covering employment are collected by state. The data are also used to update similar data for the universe of U.S. affiliates collected once every five years on the BE–12 benchmark survey.
The survey forms remain the same as in the past. No changes in the data collected or in exemption levels are proposed.
The BE–15 annual survey is sent to potential respondents in March of each year. A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31. Reports must be filed by every U.S. business enterprise that is owned 10 percent or more by a foreign investor and that has total assets, sales or gross operating revenues, or net income (or loss) of over $40 million.
As an alternative to filing paper forms, BEA will offer an electronic filing option, its eFile system, for use in reporting on Form BE–15. For more information about eFile, go to
Potential respondents are those U.S. business enterprises that reported in the 2007 benchmark survey of foreign direct investment in the United States, along with businesses that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The BE–15 is a sample survey, as described; universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the first administrative review of the
Brandon Farlander or Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482–0989 respectively.
On March 17, 2009, the Department published in the
The Department received a timely request for an administrative review of the austenitic pipe order from Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (“Jiuli TC”) on March 31, 2010, in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). On April 27, 2010, the Department published in the
The Department issued its initial and supplemental questionnaires to Jiuli TC from May to December 2010. The Department received questionnaire responses from June to December 2010. On July 30, 2010, Petitioners
On September 15, 2010, the Department released a letter to interested parties which listed potential surrogate countries and invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and surrogate value (“SV”) selection. Between August and October 2010, Petitioners and Jiuli TC submitted publicly available SV information, as well as comments and rebuttal comments on the selection of a surrogate country and SVs. For a discussion of the selection of the surrogate country,
On November 19, 2010, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department extended the time period for completing the preliminary results of review by 120 days.
From January 10 to January 14, 2011, the Department conducted a verification of Jiuli TC in the PRC. On January 26 and 27, 2011, the Department verified Jiuli TC's U.S. affiliate in Houston, Texas.
The merchandise covered by the order is circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A–312 or ASTM A–778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or ASTM A–778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A–554 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–249, ASTM A–688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005; 7306.40.5040; 7306.40.5062; 7306.40.5064; and 7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010; 7306.40.1015; 7306.40.5042; 7306.40.5044; 7306.40.5080; and 7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information provided by Jiuli TC using standard verification procedures including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the PRC and U.S. verification reports,
Based on the evidence presented in Jiuli TC's questionnaire responses and at verification, which is that Jiuli TC owns 75 percent of Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Jiuli SD Co.”), we preliminarily find affiliation between Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD Co. pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.
In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will treat affiliated producers as a single entity, or “collapse” them, where: (1) The producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and (2) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. In determining whether a significant potential for manipulation exists, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that the Department may consider various factors, including: (i) The level of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) whether the operations of the affiliated firms are intertwined through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers.
The Department preliminarily concludes that the totality of the record evidence supports collapsing Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD Co. into a single entity, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the Department preliminarily based its margin
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this review. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
When the Department reviews imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (“FOPs”) valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-economy countries that are: (A) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value all FOPs in a single country, except for labor.
During this review, the Department identified India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru as a non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data is most likely available.
The Department has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (A) It is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC; (B) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly-available information to value FOPs until 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
Jiuli TC provided evidence that it is a publicly traded company on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange with Jiuli Group Joint Stock Ltd., a Chinese entity, as its primary shareholder.
Thus, the Department has analyzed whether Jiuli TC has demonstrated the absence of
The Department considers the following
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC supports a preliminary finding of
The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC supports a preliminary finding of
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by Jiuli TC demonstrates an absence of
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine whether sales of austenitic pipe to the United States by Jiuli TC were made at less than NV, the Department compared the weighted-average export price (“EP”) and constructed export price (“CEP”) to NV, as described in the “U.S. Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department used EP as the basis for U.S. price for Jiuli TC's sales where the first sale to unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, the Department calculated EP for Jiuli TC by deducting inland freight from the plant to the port, domestic brokerage and handling, international freight and marine insurance expenses from the starting price charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. The Department based NV on FOPs and consumption quantities reported by Jiuli TC for materials, energy, labor and packing.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on FOP data reported by Jiuli TC. To obtain the input costs used to calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the respondent's factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the respondent's factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
In selecting SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
Jiuli TC reported that one of its raw material inputs, steel, was sourced in part from market-economy countries and paid for in market-economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from a market-economy supplier in meaningful quantities (
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.
Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an “unspecified” country were excluded from the average value because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in
The Department is continuing to evaluate options for determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing the respondent's reported labor input by averaging industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this review, the Department is valuing labor
The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site:
The Department valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the Government of India in its publication entitled “Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,” dated March 2008. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
At verification, we obtained records from one month of the POR which allow us to calculate a scrap offset that is more specific to subject merchandise than Jiuli TC's reported scrap offset. We do not, however, have these records for the entire POR. Because necessary information is not on the record for the entire POR, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, as facts available, we are basing Jiuli TC's POR scrap offset for subject merchandise on record information obtained at verification for one month of the POR.
The Department valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price list for procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey of the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by ocean freight in India that is published in
The Department valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit using data from two Indian companies, Ratnamani and Jindal, producers of merchandise both identical and comparable to the subject merchandise, for the fiscal year January 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are available on Import Administration's Web site at
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
The Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time limit is extended.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, the Department calculated importer (or customer)-specific
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate in the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of administrative review in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews. The Department received a request to revoke two antidumping duty orders in part. The Department also received a request to defer the initiation of an administrative review for one antidumping duty order.
Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with February anniversary dates. With respect to the antidumping duty orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, and Thailand, the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review for these cases will be published in a separate initiation notice. The Department received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Bar from India with respect to one exporter and on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China with respect to one exporter. The Department also received a request in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c) to defer for one year the initiation of the February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011, administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Bar from Japan. The Department received no objections to this request from any party cited in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(ii).
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate-rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate-rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Initiation of Reviews:
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than February 29, 2012. Also, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c) we are deferring for one year the initiation of the February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Stainless Steel Bar from Japan (A–588–833) with respect to one exporter.
During any administrative
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty/countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Krisha Hill or Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
On June 30, 2010, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (“citric acid”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period.
The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of the administrative review of citric acid from the PRC within this time limit. Specifically, additional time is needed to examine the respondents' production process, factors of production (FOPs), and determine surrogate values with which to value FOPs. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review, which is currently due on April 1, 2011, by 60 days. Therefore, the preliminary results are now due no later than May 31, 2011.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request for a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the People's Republic of China (PRC). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating an antidumping duty NSR of Zhangzhou Long Mountain Foods Co., Ltd. (Long Mountain). The period of review (POR) of this NSR is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
Fred Baker, Scott Hoefke, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–4947, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
On February 19, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from the PRC.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 751(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Long Mountain certified that (1) It did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI) (
Based on information on the record, and in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we find the request Long Mountain submitted meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation of an NSR.
In cases involving non-market economies, the Department requires that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
Upon initiation, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Long Mountain and will instruct the CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the subject merchandise produced and exported by Long Mountain in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Long Mountain certified that it both produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sales of which form the basis for its NSR request, we will instruct CBP to permit the use of a bond only for entries of subject merchandise where Long Mountain acted both as producer and exporter.
To assist in its analysis of the
Interested parties requiring access to business proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets (“fish fillets”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”), received on February 28, 2011, meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation. The period of review (“POR”) for this NSR is August 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
Ricardo Martinez Rivera, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Tafishco certified that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Tafishco certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any Vietnamese exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, including those respondents not individually examined during the POI. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Tafishco also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the central government of Vietnam.
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), (B) and (C), Tafishco submitted documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which Tafishco first shipped subject merchandise for export to the United States; (2) the volume of its first shipment; and (3) the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
The Department conducted U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) database queries in an attempt to confirm that Tafishco's shipments of subject merchandise had entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties. The Department also examined whether the CBP data confirmed that such entries were made during the NSR POR. The information we examined was consistent with that provided by Tafishco.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we find that Tafishco meets the threshold requirements for initiation of a NSR for the shipments of fish fillets from Vietnam produced and exported by Tafishco.
The Department intends to issue the preliminary results of this NSR no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and the final results no later than 270 days from the date of initiation.
It is the Department's usual practice, in cases involving non-market economy countries, to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of
We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from Tafishco in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Tafishco certified that it produced and exported the subject merchandise, the sale of which is the basis for this new shipper review request, we will apply the bonding privilege to Tafishco only for subject merchandise which Tafishco both produced and exported.
To assist in its analysis of the
Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this NSR should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Erica Kuligowski,
NIST's research on elevators has primarily focused on the technical aspects of ensuring safe and reliable evacuation for the occupants of tall buildings. In addition, the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association provide requirements for the use of elevators for both occupant evacuation and fire fighter access into the building. However, there still is little understanding of how occupants use elevator systems during fire emergencies.
The main focus of this research effort is to gain an understanding of how elevators are currently used by occupants of existing multi-story buildings in the United States during fire emergencies. This research aims to summarize emergency plans and procedures from buildings that make use of one or multiple elevators from the existing elevator system (used for normal building traffic) for the evacuation of building occupants during fire emergencies. Building managers and designated safety personnel from existing buildings in the United States, including federal buildings, will be contacted to fill out a questionnaire asking about how the buildings' evacuation plans incorporate the use of the existing elevator system to evacuate occupants during fire emergencies, specifically individuals with disabilities, if at all.
This data will be collected electronically. Questionnaires will be made available on a secured website and the link to this website will be distributed by NIST staff to building property managers and designated safety personnel.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Rich Malinowski, (727) 824–5305 or
This is an extension of a currently approved information collection. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Region manages the United States (U.S.) fisheries of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico under the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for each Region. The Regional Fishery Management Councils prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The regulations implementing the FMPs that have reporting requirements are at 50 CFR part 622.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 622 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS Southeast Region requests information from fishery participants. This information, upon receipt, results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of the fisheries of the EEZ off the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.
Paper applications, electronic reports, and telephone calls are required from participants, and methods of submittal include Internet, electronic forms, and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Multiple Fishery Dealer Application, Notification of Permit Purchase Price—Permit Transfer, Notification Harvest Activity—Aquaculture Live Rock, Request for Octocoral or Allowable Chemical Vessel Permit, and the Transit Notification—Golden Crab Vessel, 5 minutes; Rock Shrimp Vessel Position Report, 15 minutes; Multiple Fishery Vessel Application, South Atlantic Wreckfish Vessel Form, South Atlantic Golden Crab Vessel Form, Colombian Treaty Vessel Form, Aquaculture Live Rock Site Permit, Endorsement Transfer Gulf Red Snapper, Endorsement South Atlantic Rock Shrimp, Endorsement Mackerel Gillnet, Notification of Transfers, 25 minutes; Dolphin/Wahoo Permit Application/Operator card, 30 minutes; Aquaculture Live Rock Site Evaluation Report, 45 minutes; Rock Shrimp Vessel Operator Permit Card Application, one hour; Rock Shrimp Vessel Non-Renewed Endorsement Request, two hours; Rock Shrimp Vessel Monitoring System Installation Form, 4 hours.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
11 a.m., Friday April 29, 2010.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
11 a.m., Friday April 22, 2011.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
11 a.m., Friday April 15, 2011.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
11 a.m., Friday April 1, 2011.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
11 a.m., Friday April 8, 2011.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202–418–5084.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. The U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center intends to license this invention exclusively to Sage-N Research, Inc, a California Corporation with principal offices at, 1525 McCarthy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Milpitas, CA 95035. The invention to be licensed is known as “Methods for Detection and Identification of Cell Types (DICT),” and its U.S. Patent Application serial number is 12/570,038, filed on September 30, 2009.
Requests for more information and/or objections should be directed to Eric McGill telephone: 410–436–8467,
Dhirajlal Parekh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, AMSRD–ECB–PI–BP–TT, Bldg E3330/Rm 241 5183 Blackhawk Road, APG, MD 21010–5424, telephone: 410–436–8400, e-mail:
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. The U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center intends to license these inventions exclusively in the field of virus detection in Agricultural and Veterinary Diagnostics and Agricultural and Veterinary Disease Detection, to NanoEngineering Corporation, a Florida Corporation with principal offices at 1717 Edgar Street—Unit 103, and West Palm Beach, Florida 33401–6976. The inventions to be licensed are U.S. Patent No. 6,051,189 issued April 18, 2000, and entitled “System and method for detection, identification and monitoring of submicron-sized particles,” U.S. Patent No. 6,485,686 issued November 26, 2002, and entitled “Method and apparatus for counting submicron sized particles,” U.S. Patent No. 6,491,872 issued December 10, 2002, and entitled “Method and system for detecting and recording submicron sized particles,” and U.S. Patent No. 7,250,138 issued July 31, 2007, and entitled “Method and system for detecting and recording submicron sized particles.”
Requests for more information and/or objections should be directed to Eric McGill telephone: 410–436–8467,
Dhirajlal Parekh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, AMSRD–ECB–PI–BP–TT, Bldg E3330/Rm 241 5183 Blackhawk Road, APG, MD 21010–5424, telephone: 410–436–8400, e-mail:
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army. The U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center intends to license these inventions exclusively to Guild Associates, Inc., an Ohio Corporation with principal offices 5750 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016. The inventions to be licensed are known as “Filtration Media and process for the Removal of Hazardous Material from Air Streams,” and “Zirconium Hydroxide for Decontaminating Toxic Agents.” The U.S. Patent Application serial numbers for these inventions are 12/914,334 filed on October 28, 2010 and 12/917,811 filed on November 2, 2010, respectively.
Requests for more information and/or objections should be directed to Eric McGill telephone: 410–436–8467,
Dhirajlal Parekh, Office of Research and Technology Applications, U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, AMSRD–ECB–PI–BP–TT, Bldg E3330/Rm 241 5183 Blackhawk Road, APG, MD 21010–5424, telephone: 410–436–8400, e-mail:
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
The Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) is providing notice that it is releasing the new version of the MFTURP No. 1, effective April 1, 2011.
Submit comments to Publication and Rules Manager, Strategic Business Directorate, Business Services, 1 Soldier Way, Building 1900W,
Mr. Chad Privett, (618) 220–6901, or Mr. Cory Dearolf, (618) 220–6959, or Mr. George Alie, (618) 220–5870.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of Availability (NOA).
The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army, G–3/5/7, has reviewed the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for Realignment, Growth, and Stationing of Army Aviation Assets” and has made the decision to proceed with the implementation of Alternative 3 (preferred alternative). Specific details of the decision are captured in the Army's ROD for this action. This ROD explains the Army will activate and station a new Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) at Fort Carson, Colorado, resulting in a total growth of approximately 2,700 Soldiers and 113 helicopters. As part of this decision, Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM), Washington, will receive existing aviation units that will be realigned from other locations and will gain approximately 1,400 new Soldiers and 44 helicopters. Implementation of this decision will include CAB training at each installation and at their respective satellite maneuver training areas: Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) for Fort Carson and Yakima Training Center (YTC) for JBLM. This alternative best supports the need for realignment, growth, and realignment of aviation units.
Questions or comments regarding the ROD should be forwarded to: Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Environmental Command, Attention: IMPA–AE, 1835 Army Boulevard, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234–2686.
Public Affairs Office at (210) 221–0882; fax (410) 436–1693, during normal business hours; or e-mail APGR-
The ROD incorporates analyses contained in the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for the Realignment, Growth, and Stationing of Army Aviation Assets,” including comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The ROD discusses each alternative for the Proposed Action and provides a discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation commitments the Army will implement as part of this decision. The selected action best supports the need for con-solidation, growth, and stationing of aviation assets. This need includes addressing imbalances between mission requirements and available aviation forces, and also improving training opportunities for aviation and ground units. The decision will increase the availability of rotary wing units to meet current and future national security requirements and will allow the Army better to organize existing aviation units to promote more effective training and force management. Existing CABs cannot meet the continuing high demand sufficient to meet the Army's goal of a one year deployed boots-on-the-Ground (BOG) to a two-year home station stabilization or 1:2 BOG to dwell ratio. The completion of these stationing actions will provide sufficient aviation assets to allow Soldiers more time at home between deployments. Furthermore, Fort Carson and JBLM do not currently have a CAB to support integrated air-ground operations. Air-ground integration training between CAB units and ground units allows each
The decision to realign components of a CAB to JBLM instead of stationing a full CAB there will reduce the impacts a full CAB would have had to traffic on Interstate 5 and other congested roadways and also reduce impacts on local schools. Split stationing existing CAB units and realigning less than a full CAB to JBLM will also ensure that critical aviation lift assets will remain in Alaska to support operations there. This split stationing approach will provide units at JBLM with full CAB training capability and benefits when realigned units are added to JBLMs existing aviation units.
Environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the decision include potentially significant impacts to: transportation on the Interstate 5 corridor near JBLM, fish and water quality in Puget Sound, and noise impacts to sensitive receptors. There are potentially significant impacts to biological resources at YTC from increased potential for wildfire and habitat degradation associated with aviation training. There may also be significant but mitigable impacts to soils at Fort Carson, PCMS, and YTC as well as significant but mitigable impacts to water resources at YTC. At PCMS, cumulative impacts to soils are predicted to be manageable with current dust control mitigation techniques. Impacts to cultural resources, air quality, noise, and public land use were all predicted to be less than significant.
This decision provides the proper balance for addressing the shortfall in aviation force structure, optimizing training readiness, and enhancing quality of life for Soldiers and their Families by increasing the times between deployments for aviation Soldiers. As part of the implementation of this decision, the Army will take practical measures to mitigate impacts to protect and sustain the environment.
A summary of environmental impacts and rationale for the decision can be found in the ROD which is available along with the FPEIS for public review at
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2011; correction.
On March 11, 2011, the Department of Education published in the
Ann Margaret Galiatsos. Telephone: (202) 205–9765; or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
On pages 13365, 13366, and 13367 of the March 11 NIA, we indicated that there would be only one pre-application meeting and that it would be held on April 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., Washington, DC time. We are correcting the March 11 NIA to reflect that the Department is offering a second pre-application meeting at 2:00 p.m. on April 5, 2011. The corrections are as follows:
On page 13365, second column, the “Date of Pre-Application Meeting” section is corrected to read “Dates of Pre-Application Meetings: April 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., Washington, DC time and April 5, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.”
On page 13366, third column, and page 13367, first column, the “Date of Pre-Application Meeting” section is corrected to read as follows:
“Dates of Pre-Application Meetings: The Department will hold two pre-application meetings for prospective applicants. The first pre-application meeting will be held on April 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., Washington, DC time, at the U.S. Department of Education, Room 1W128, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. The second pre-application meeting will be held on April 5, 2011 at 2:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, via conference call.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these meetings to discuss the purpose of the program, priorities, selection criteria, application requirements, submission requirements, and reporting requirements. Interested parties may participate in the first pre-application meeting either by conference call or in person. Interested parties may participate in the second pre-application meeting by conference call.
The site for the first pre-application meeting is accessible by Metro on the Blue, Orange, Green, and Yellow lines at the Seventh Street and Maryland Avenue exit of the L'Enfant Plaza station. After the first meeting, program staff will be available from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on that same day to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation.
To participate by conference call in either the first or second pre-application meetings, the conference line number is 1–888–456–0285 and the participant pass code is 1704354. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals interested in attending either meeting are encouraged to preregister by e-mailing their name, organization, and contact information with the subject heading PRE–APPLICATION MEETING to
For further information about the pre-application meetings, contact Ann Margaret Galiatsos, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W259, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 205–9765 or by e-mail:
20 U.S.C. 7223–7223j.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Education.
Notice of intent to compromise claim with request for comments.
The United States Department of Education (Department) intends to compromise a claim against the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) now pending before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), Docket No. 07–42–R. Before compromising a claim, the Department must publish its intent to do so in the
We must receive your comments on the proposed action on or before May 16, 2011.
Address all comments concerning the proposed action to Ronald B. Petracca, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 6C111, Washington, DC 20202–2110.
Ronald B. Petracca. Telephone: (202) 401–6008. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (
We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed action. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 6E312, FB–6, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under
On July 12, 2007, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education and the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (collectively, the Assistant Secretaries) jointly issued a program determination letter (PDL) seeking to recover from DCPS $1,354,679 in funds under Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 of the ESEA (Reading First), Title II, Part A of the ESEA (Improving Teacher Quality or ITQ), and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–B). These funds, based on findings in a single audit of DCPS (Audit Control Number 03–04–68025), were determined by the Assistant Secretaries to have been expended, during fiscal year 2003, in violation of Title I, Reading First, ITQ, and IDEA–B. Specifically, the Assistant Secretaries found that DCPS had: Failed to maintain appropriate documentation supporting payroll costs for Title I, ITQ, and IDEA–B; failed to provide proof of payment for various accrued expenses billed to Title I, ITQ, and IDEA–B; failed to maintain appropriate documentation for expenditures under ITQ and IDEA–B; failed to maintain source documentation to support journal entries for costs attributed to Title I, ITQ, and IDEA–B; failed to maintain adequate documentation to support the acquisition and disposition of property obtained with Reading First and Title I funds; and lacked adequate supporting documentation for items charged to IDEA–B.
DCPS filed an
The Department proposes to compromise this remaining claim to $675,000. Based on litigation risks, the high percentage of funds being recovered (86 percent of the remaining claim), and the costs of proceeding through the administrative and, possibly, court process for this appeal, the Department has determined that it would not be practical or in the public interest to continue this proceeding. In making this determination, the Department recognizes that DCPS has entered into a High Risk Corrective Action Plan (HRCAP) with the Department, which includes a plan to address weaknesses in financial management, procurement, and property management, among other issues. Since entering into the HRCAP, the Department has worked closely with DCPS to support DCPS in resolving the issues addressed in the HRCAP, including the practices or procedures that gave rise to the disallowances in the PDL. Therefore, the Department does
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 1234a(j).
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Public Hearing.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
Topaz proposes to develop the Project on up to 4,100 acres of land. As proposed, the nominal 550-megawatt electric generation project would include the installation of about nine million photovoltaic (PV) solar modules within approximately 437 arrays and associated electric equipment. Generated electricity would be sold to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) under a long-term power purchase agreement. The Project would be interconnected into PG&E's existing Morro Bay-Midway 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, which runs in an east-to-west direction through the site and portions of Kern County.
DOE invites the public to submit comments on the Draft EIS during the public comment period, which began on March 25, 2011 and ends on May 9, 2011. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the comment period in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or postmarked after May 9, 2011, will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by e-mail [
DOE requests that anyone who wishes to present oral comments at the public hearing contact Ms. Colamaria by phone or e-mail [
The public hearing and Question & Answer Open House will be accessible to people with disabilities. In addition, any individual needing specific assistance, such as a sign language interpreter or translator, should contact Ms. Colamaria [
Public comments can be submitted electronically or by U.S. Mail. Written comments on the proposed EIS scope should be signed and addressed to the NEPA Document Manager for this project: Ms. Angela Colamaria, Loan Guarantee Program (LP–10), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Electronic submission of comments is encouraged due to processing time required for regular mail. Comments can be submitted electronically by sending an e-mail to:
To obtain additional information about this EIS, the public hearing, or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS, contact Angela Colamaria by telephone: 202–287–5387; toll-free number: 800–832–0885 ext. 75387; or electronic mail:
Title XVII of EPAct 2005 established a Federal loan guarantee program for eligible energy projects, and was amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to create Section 1705 of Title XVII (42 U.S.C. 16516), authorizing a new program for rapid deployment of renewable energy projects and related manufacturing facilities, electric power transmission projects, and leading edge biofuels projects. The Section 1705 Program is designed to address the current economic conditions of the nation, in part, through financing such projects.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Lender-Applicant, with Topaz as the borrower, applied to DOE for a federal loan guarantee under the Solicitation entitled, “Federal Loan Guarantees for Commercial Technology Renewable Energy Generation Projects under the Financial Institution Partnership Program” (Solicitation No. DE–FOA–0000166), issued on October 7, 2009.
The purpose and need for action by DOE is to comply with its mandate under EPAct 2005 by selecting eligible projects that meet the goals of Section 1705 Program, as summarized above. The EIS will inform DOE's decision on whether to issue a loan guarantee to Topaz to support the Proposed Project. DOE's proposed action is to issue a loan guarantee to Topaz to support construction and start-up of the Topaz Solar Farm. The Proposed Project would be located in an unincorporated portion of eastern San Luis Obispo County, California, adjacent to Highway 58 and east of Bitterwater Road. Topaz has options to purchase approximately 10,000 acres of land in the Project area. The Proposed Project would be developed on up to 4,100 acres of land within one of two overlapping study areas.
The Proposed Project would consist of: a solar field of approximately nine million ground-mounted PV modules that collect solar radiation to produce electricity; an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) and delivers it to a new Project substation which collects and converts the generated power from 34.5 kV to 230 kV for delivery via a new PG&E switching station to PG&E's existing Morro Bay-Midway 230-kV transmission line; and the aforementioned PG&E switching station that interconnects the Proposed Project to PG&E's existing transmission line. After construction, PG&E would own and operate the switching station. As part of the Proposed Project, Topaz would also construct and operate a Monitoring and Maintenance Facility and a Solar Energy Learning Center within the Proposed Project's site boundary. The Proposed Project would also include up to 22 miles of on-site access roads as well as leach field and septic systems for the two facilities listed above.
Topaz has interconnection agreements in place for the first 400 MW of Project capacity. The California Independent System Operator has determined that network upgrades would be required to accommodate the Proposed Project's remaining 150 MW, as well as other generation projects in the region. Network upgrades could include the reconductoring of 35 miles of the 230-kV transmission lines between the new PG&E switching station and the Midway Substation. Such upgrades would extend the height of every other existing tower by 20 feet, but would not introduce a new structure.
In determining the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS for the Proposed Project, DOE identified the reasonable alternatives that would satisfy the underlying purpose and need for agency action. Rather than being directly responsible for the siting, construction, and operation of respective projects selected in response to solicitations under EPAct 2005, DOE's actions are limited to guaranteeing the debt obligation for the project. Therefore, DOE's overall decision will be to either provide a loan guarantee for the Proposed Project or to decline to provide a loan guarantee (
The Project-Specific alternatives include alternate configurations for the solar arrays. Within the Proposed Project site, Topaz identified two Study Areas (Study Area A and Study Area B) that would be suitable for the Proposed Project, although construction of the Proposed Project would take place on only one Study Area if the Proposed Project is approved. DOE analyzed both Study Areas available to Topaz as project-specific alternatives (Project-Specific Alternative A and Project-Specific Alternative B).
Under the No Action alternative, DOE would not provide the loan guarantee to Topaz. In this case, Topaz may have greater difficulty obtaining financing for the Project, which may result in a delay in the start of construction, construction in smaller phases over a longer time period, potentially increased project cost, or could possibly result in the Proposed Project not being built. Although Topaz may still pursue the Project without the loan guarantee, as defined above, for purposes of the Draft EIS analysis, it is assumed that the No Action alternative would result in no Project or in a no build scenario. DOE does not have a preferred alternative at this time, and will identify its preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
In the October 22, 2010 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (75 FR 65306), DOE provided notice of a proposed DOE action in a floodplain pursuant to DOE Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). Overhead electrical lines would need to cross 100-year floodplains (unnamed drainages within the Carrizo Plain, northwest of Soda Lake). Since some of the floodplains on the project site are greater than 200 feet wide and posts are needed every 200 feet to support overhead lines, the installation of posts within the floodplain is anticipated. DOE has prepared a floodplain assessment as required by DOE regulations. Interested parties may comment on the floodplain assessment, which has been incorporated into the Draft EIS.
The DOE prepared this Draft EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, and the DOE NEPA implementing procedures. The Draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the Proposed Action, including the alternative layout options, and the No Action Alternative. Potential impacts identified during the scoping process and analyzed in the Draft EIS related to the following: Air quality; greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; energy use and production; water resources, including groundwater and surface waters; wetlands and floodplains; geological resources; ecological resources, including species of special concern and threatened and endangered species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp; cultural resources, including historic structures and properties, sites of religious and cultural significance to Tribes, and archaeological resources; land use;
The Topaz Proposed Project site is expected to impact waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); therefore the Proposed Project will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit. As a result, USACE has participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this Draft EIS and will use this EIS (in part) to determine whether to issue a Section 404 permit. USACE will issue a separate decision document on the CWA Section 404 permit for the Proposed Project that will incorporate the environmental analyses from this EIS.
The DOE will use and coordinate the NEPA public comment process to satisfy the public involvement requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). DOE has invited Federally-recognized American Indian Tribes that have historic interests in the area to also participate in government-to-government consultation regarding the Proposed Project. In addition to these Federally-recognized tribes, the California Native American Heritage Commission provided DOE with a Native American contacts list in the project area. DOE contacted parties on the list to solicit concerns or comments on the Proposed Project.
Copies of the Draft EIS have been distributed to: Members of Congress; Native American Tribal governments, Federal, State, and local officials; and agencies, organizations and individuals who may be interested or affected. The Draft EIS is on the Department of Energy's NEPA Web site at
Copies of the Draft EIS are also available for review at the Simmler Public Library/California Valley Community Service District; 13080 Soda Lake Road; California Valley, CA 93453 and the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building; 976 Osos St. Room 300; San Luis Obispo, CA 93408.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure.
This Notice establishes the procedure for program offices operating under the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in conducting the objective merit review of discretionary financial assistance and Other Transaction Authority funding applications. The effective date for the Objective Merit Review Procedure contained in this notice is March 18, 2011.
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, 1–877–337–3463.
DOE provides financial assistance, in the form of grants cooperative agreements and technology investment agreements. The principal purpose of these transactions is the transfer of a thing of value, usually money but occasionally property or other items of value, to a recipient to accomplish a public purpose identified. DOE funds only those programs authorized by Federal statute. Financial assistance may be either discretionary or mandatory. Discretionary financial assistance means DOE provides funding to a recipient of DOE's choosing; DOE has the discretion to select a recipient as well as the size of the award. Mandatory financial assistance means DOE must provide the assistance to the entities named and the amounts stated by statute.
These procedures do not cover acquisition. Financial assistance differs from an acquisition, which refers to instruments used when the principal purpose of the transaction is the acquisition of supplies or services for the direct benefit of the Government. The procedures pursuant to this notice do not apply to acquisitions, which are covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
III. Objective Merit Review Procedure—
i. Any application not meeting the initial review criteria will be determined to be non-compliant and precluded from further technical merit review.
ii. Any applicant that is determined to be non-compliant will be notified in writing, along with the reasons the application will not be evaluated further.
iii. Applications meeting the initial compliance review criteria will be reviewed for merit in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria in the FOA, program rule or notice.
2. Merit Review of Solicited Applications—The Merit Review Panel (Panel) will conduct an objective merit review for each application that passes the initial compliance review, using the criteria published in the FOA, program rule, or notice. The criteria to be used in the merit review and the other mandatory information specified in 10 CFR 600.8 must be included in the FOA, program rule or notice. Typically, the merit review criteria will be weighted individually to reflect their relative importance in the overall merit of the application. The Panel will review solicited applications based on information in the FOA. The merit review will typically include the following attributes:
i. Applications that pass the initial compliance review will be reviewed by the Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer review panels will provide individual evaluations, which may include a score to the Federal Merit Review Manager. DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will provide a consensus rating (numeric, adjectival, or comparable) for each criterion outlined in the FOA, program rule or notice based on the strengths and weaknesses of the applications.
ii. An overall consensus rating will be determined for each application by the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel.
iii. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will prepare a Merit Review Advisory Report for the Selection Official. The report will discuss the peer review, if any. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will establish a selection range to include applications that were deemed technically acceptable. The recommended selection range will be determined at the conclusion of the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel meeting. Rationale for the range must be included in the Merit Review Advisory Report.
(c) Review Standards—Unsolicited Proposals—1. Unsolicited proposals will receive an initial review to determine if the proposal will be eligible under 10 CFR 600.6(c). For an unsolicited proposal to be eligible for an award, a proposal must meet one of the following criteria:
i. The activity to be funded is necessary to the satisfactory completion of, or is a continuation or renewal of, an activity presently being funded by DOE or another Federal agency, and for which competition for support would have a significant adverse effect on continuity or completion of the activity.
ii. The activity is being or would be conducted by the applicant using its own resources or those donated or provided by third parties; however, DOE support of that activity would enhance the public benefits to be derived and DOE knows of no other entity which is conducting or is planning to conduct such an activity.
iii. The applicant is a unit of government and the activity to be supported is related to performance of a governmental function within the subject jurisdiction, thereby precluding DOE provision of support to another entity.
iv. The applicant has exclusive domestic capability to perform the activity successfully, based upon unique equipment, proprietary data, technical expertise, or other such unique qualifications.
v. The award implements an agreement between the United States Government and a foreign government to fund a foreign applicant.
vi. Time constraints associated with a public health, safety, welfare or national security requirement preclude competition.
vii. The proposed project was submitted as an unsolicited proposal and represents a unique or innovative idea, method, or approach which would not be eligible for financial assistance under a recent, current, or planned solicitation, and if, as determined by DOE, a competitive solicitation would not be appropriate.
viii. The responsible program Assistant Secretary, Deputy Administrator, or other official of equivalent authority determines that a noncompetitive award is in the public interest. This authority may not be delegated.
2. Unsolicited proposals that pass the initial review shall be reviewed against the criteria outlined in EERE's Guide for the Submission of Unsolicited Proposals by a Merit Review Panel. These criteria include:
i. Unique and innovative methods, approaches or concepts demonstrated by the proposal;
ii. Overall scientific/technical or socioeconomic merit of the proposed activity;
iii. Potential contribution of the effort to the DOE's specific mission;
iv. The proposer's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal objectives;
v. The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel who are critical in achieving the proposal objectives;
vi. The realism of the proposed costs; and
vii. The availability of funding to support the proposed project, and the relative merit of the project compared with others that could be supported with the same funds.
(
3. When the substance of an unsolicited proposal is available to the Government without restriction from another source, or closely resembles that of a pending competitive solicitation, or does not demonstrate an innovative and
4. Additional guidance for reviewing noncompetitive proposals, including renewal applications, and the template for the review plan are provided in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance (available at
(d) The Merit Review Panel—1. The Merit Review Panel can be established in many ways. It should always include at least one DOE Federal employee. Non-DOE Federal experts may be part of the Merit Review Panel as Peer Reviewers, but are not required. The most typical arrangements are a peer review panel and a DOE Federal employee; a peer review panel and a DOE Federal panel; or only a DOE Federal panel. Peer review panels and DOE Federal panels should include at least three technically qualified individuals. Merit review that involves a Federal review panel is preferred over merit review that involves only one Federal reviewer. The names of the Merit Review Panel will not be released to the public.
2.
3.
i. In determining potential conflicts, the Federal Merit Review Manager shall give close scrutiny to reviewers who perform any of the following:
a. Have any decision-making role regarding the application or provide technical assistance to the applicant in regards to the application;
b. Audit the recipient for the project; or
c. If included in the review, will give the appearance of a conflict of interest.
ii. Situations that could be perceived as conflicts of interest may include:
a. The application being reviewed was submitted by a reviewer's recent student, recent teacher, former employer, close personal friend or relative of the reviewer, spouse, or the reviewer's minor children.
b. The application being reviewed was submitted by a person with whom the reviewer has had longstanding differences.
c. The application being reviewed is similar to projects being conducted by the reviewer or by the reviewer's organization.
iii. When situations arise that present a perceived or actual conflict of interest, the Federal Merit Review Manager, with consultation from Legal Counsel, may permit reviewers to participate if a Conflict of Interest (COI) waiver is granted and an acceptable mitigation plan is implemented. The mitigation implemented shall be reflected in the Merit Review Advisory Report. However, in no event will a waiver be granted to permit a reviewer to evaluate an application/proposal for his/her/host or affiliated organization or if participation is prohibited by language in the FOA.
iv. Each member of the Merit Review Panel, including ex-officio members, shall sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Certification and Acknowledgement, which requires adherence to the following guidelines:
a. Reviewers shall not discuss the evaluation process with any unauthorized personnel.
b. Reviewers shall not divulge their identities to any applicant.
c. Reviewers shall not contact applicants.
d. Reviewers shall not discuss the Panel proceedings outside of the Merit Review Panel meeting, even after the selection and award.
e. Reviewers shall not accept any invitations, gratuities (
f. Reviewers shall only evaluate information provided by the applicants in the applications and only evaluate against the published criteria. No additional criteria are to be considered by the Panel.
g. Typically, reviewers shall initially rate all applications independently and without consultation between reviewers.
h. Reviewers will inform the Federal Merit Review Manager of any personal or organizational conflicts of interest arising out of applications they are asked to review.
i. Reviewers may contact the Federal Merit Review Manager to obtain clarifications regarding applications.
For more details see the DOE's Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance at
4.
5.
i. Selecting the Merit Review Panel members and obtaining approval from the EERE Program Manager;
ii. Ensuring a comprehensive and robust Evaluation and Selection Plan;
iii. Overseeing the merit review process and all panel meetings, ensuring that merit review procedures are followed consistently, as well as applicable statutes and regulations including, but not limited to, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2;
iv. Ensuring that Merit Review Panel members understand the evaluation criteria and merit review procedures/process;
v. In the event of multiple Merit Review Panels due to large number of
vi. Ensure each application is evaluated by the Merit Review Panel in accordance with the Evaluation and Selection Plan;
vii. Ensuring that reviewers provide sound, well documented evaluations;
viii. Addressing any unexpected or unique circumstances presented and maintaining the integrity of the Merit Review process;
ix. Reviewing and approving the written summary of the evaluation and recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review Advisory Report;
x. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
xi. Ensuring that the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel take appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit Review Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
xii. Recommending application of the program policy factors, when appropriate; ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared in conformity with guidance set out in Part IV, herein; and
xiii. Making a presentation, if requested, to the Selection Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the form of a pre-selection briefing.
6.
i. Preparing the Evaluation and Selection Plan for Federal Merit Review Manager and Selection Official approval;
ii. Managing merit review logistics, including panel meetings, etc.;
iii. Obtaining signed certificates of confidentiality from all Merit Review Panel members to be kept on file at the issuing agency;
iv. Preparing the written summary of the evaluation and recommendations for the Selection Official via the Merit Review Advisory Report;
v. Ensuring that the Merit Review Advisory Report is prepared in conformity with guidance set out in Part V, herein;
vi. Performing the merit review duties of a regular Merit Review Panel member, if necessary or appropriate;
vii. Working with the Federal Merit Review Manager to ensure that the technical merit review procedures are followed consistently when carrying out the technical merit review. In the event of multiple merit review panels due to large number of applications, the Federal Merit Review Manager shall ensure consistency among the panels;
viii. Working with the Contracting Officer and Legal Counsel to take appropriate action to mitigate conflicts of interest of Merit Review Panel members as discussed in section III(d)(3) herein;
ix. Assisting the Federal Merit Review Manager with the merit review process;
x. Assuring control and security of applications;
xi. Preparing the Merit Review Advisory Report for the Selection Official;
xii. Assisting in making a presentation, if requested, to the Selection Official and other advisors to the Selection Official in the form of a pre-selection briefing;
xiii. Notifying unsuccessful applicants; and
xiv. Maintaining all merit review documentation.
7. Non-DOE Peer Reviewers typically will provide additional expertise to the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. Peer reviewers provide specialized expertise and technical input to the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel by reviewing applications and providing written and sometimes verbal comments and ratings (numeric, adjectival or comparable) based on their reviews of applications. Peer Reviewers must be fully briefed by the Federal Merit Review Manager regarding the review criteria and the peer reviewers must be aware that any criteria not specified in the solicitation must not be used to evaluate the applications. Peer Reviewers must sign a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Certification and Acknowledgement, as provided in 10 CFR 600.13(d). All Peer Reviewers forward their comments and scores as required to the Merit Review Panel. At the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel's discretion, all or a subset of the Peer Reviewers may be invited to present their scores and identified strengths and weaknesses so the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel may discuss the Peer Reviewers' comments and better understand the Peer Reviewers' scores and comments. However, unless specifically allowed by statute, the Peer Reviewers may not provide consensus scores or comments to the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel. The DOE Federal Merit Review Panel will dismiss all non-Federal reviewers prior to making any decisions regarding recommendations to the Selection Official for award selection or establishment of the selection range.
i. The Merit Review Panel should only task the minimum number of Peer Reviewers necessary to effectively review the submitted applications; and
ii. Selection of Peer Reviewers shall be done in accordance with the selection of members of the Merit Review Panel, part III(d)(2) herein.
IV.
(a) Section 1 shall include the following:
1. A brief statement as to the purpose of the Merit Review Advisory Report; and
2. A brief summary of the number of applications received and the number deemed technically acceptable by the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel for selection for negotiation of award.
(b) Section 2 shall include the following:
1. A list of applications rejected in the Initial Compliance Review, if any; and
2. A list of the reasons why the application was rejected and not comprehensively reviewed.
(c) Section 3 shall include the following:
1. The number of members on the DOE Federal Merit Review Panel and the number of peer reviewers, their names and a brief discussion of their qualifications, a statement that all applications were independently reviewed in accordance with the requirements contained herein, and a statement that all Panel members, including ex-officio members, signed a Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Certification and Acknowledgement;
2. A discussion of the peer review process for all applications;
3. Details of the Merit Review Panel meeting and the process followed, including a discussion of any deviations, such as issues with conflicts of interest;
4. A discussion of the development of consensus scores for each application, the ranking process, the number of
5. Details of the Panel's process to set the selection range, and a reference to the final list of applications deemed technically acceptable in the Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications.
(d) Section 4 shall include the following:
1. A request for action from the Selection Official regarding application of the program policy factors and selection of applications for negotiation of award; and
2. Instructions regarding these actions and subsequent communication of his/her decision to the Contracting Officer.
(e) Attachments to the Merit Review Advisory Report shall include the following:
1. Record of Consensus Strengths and Weaknesses for each application;
2. Record of Consensus Scores for All Applications;
3. Program Policy Factor Information Sheet; and
4. Draft Selection Statement for execution by the Selection Official.
(f) For non-competitive applications including renewal applications, the report to the Selection official will consist of individual review forms and a summary statement consistent with that found in Appendix C of the DOE Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance (available at
V.
VI.
VII.
For typical EERE Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs), examples of reviewer qualifications are identified below. Stronger qualifications may be needed for certain FOAs. For example, the Energy Innovation Hubs are modeled after Bell Labs, which recruited the nation's best and brightest and sought a level of scientific quality not possible in all R&D endeavors. The Department plans to invest more than $120 million over five years in the Hubs, with a possible extension to ten years. Therefore, reviewer selection criteria should be consistent with the high quality of science expected and the significant level of investment. Reviewer qualifications for typical EERE FOAs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides notification that the entity making the filing has determined the facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications and self-recertifications.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission 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 email
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
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
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Prohibited:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 is hereby granting a project waiver of the Buy American requirements of ARRA Section 1605 under the authority of Section 1605(b)(2) [manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality] to the DeSoto Parish Waterworks District 1 (“the District”) for three (3) packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged membrane filtration Systems (MFSs), manufactured by Siemens Water Technologies Corporation, proposed for the expansion of its existing water treatment plant. The District requires a submerged membrane treatment system capable of a 4-log removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium at a production rate of 1 million gallons per day (MGD). The packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged MFS is manufactured by foreign manufacturers and no United States manufacturer produces an alternative that meets the District's technical specifications. This is a project specific waiver and only applies to the use of the specified product for the ARRA funded project being proposed. Any other ARRA project that may wish to use the same product must apply for a separate waiver based on the specific project circumstances. The Regional Administrator is making this determination based on the review and recommendations of the EPA Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division. The District has provided sufficient documentation to support its request.
The Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management has concurred on this decision to make an exception to Section 1605 of ARRA. This action permits the purchase of three packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged MFSs not manufactured in the United States, for the proposed project being implemented by the District.
Nasim Jahan, Buy American Coordinator, (214) 665–7522, SRF & Projects Section, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
In accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c) and 1605(b)(2), EPA hereby provides notice that it is granting a project waiver of the requirements of Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5, Buy American requirements to the District for the acquisition of three packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged membrane filtration systems (MFSs). The District has been unable to find an American made MFS to meet its specific water requirements.
Section 1605 of ARRA requires that none of the appropriated funds may be used for the construction, alteration,
The District has provided information to the EPA demonstrating that there is no packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged MFS manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonable quantity and of a satisfactory quality to meet the required technical specification. The District initiated planning on the water treatment plant expansion in 2008. They completed a pilot study of the submerged membrane filtration/treatment system and a System Improvement Plan, which were approved by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH).
The District requires a submerged membrane treatment system capable of a 4-log removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium at a production rate of 1 MGD (694 gpm). As required by the project specifications, each skid-mounted packaged MFS must include the backwash system, clean in place (CIP) system, process control panel, compressed air system, automatic feed strainers, block and bleed valves for isolation during cleaning, and feed and filtrate turbidimeters. The specifications also require that the frequency of chemical cleaning must not exceed once per month, on average, while the frequency of maintenance washing must not exceed once per day.
Based on additional research conducted by EPA Region 6, there do not appear to be any domestic packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged MFS manufacturers that would meet the District's technical specifications. EPA's national contractor prepared a technical assessment report based on the waiver request submittal, which confirmed the waiver applicant's claim that there are no American-made submerged MFS available for use in the proposed water treatment system.
EPA has also evaluated the District's request to determine if its submission is considered late or if it could be considered timely, as per the OMB Guidance at CFR 176.120. EPA will generally regard waiver requests with respect to components that were specified in the bid solicitation or in a general/primary construction contract as “late” if submitted after the contract date. However, EPA could also determine that a request be evaluated as timely, though made after the date that the contract was signed, if the need for a waiver was not reasonably foreseeable. If the need for a waiver is reasonably foreseeable, then EPA could still apply discretion in these late cases as per the OMB Guidance, which says “the award official
In this case, the waiver request was submitted after the contract date because the District initiated an evaluation of substantial transformation for the submerged MFS; however, after having a thorough discussion at the Regional level, the District has made a decision that the issuance of the project specific waiver for the membrane equipment is the best way to ensure that the District is in compliance with the Buy American provisions of ARRA. There is no indication that the District failed to request a waiver in order to avoid the requirements of the ARRA, particularly since there are no domestically manufactured products available that meet the project specifications. EPA will consider the District's waiver request, a foreseeable late request, as though it had been timely made since there is no gain by the District and no loss by the government due to the late request.
The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ Memorandum, Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, defines reasonably available quantity as “the quantity of iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is available or will be available at the time needed and place needed, and in the proper form or specification as specified in the project plans and design.” The District has incorporated specific technical design requirements for installation of membrane filtration cassettes at its wastewater treatment plant.
The purpose of the ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery in part by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay projects that are “shovel ready” by requiring utilities, such as the District, to revise their standards and specifications, institute a new bidding process, and potentially choose a more costly, less efficient project. The imposition of ARRA Buy American requirements on such projects otherwise eligible for State Revolving Fund assistance would result in unreasonable delay and thus displace the “shovel ready” status for this project. To further delay construction is in direct conflict with a fundamental economic purpose of the ARRA, which is to create or retain jobs.
The Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division has reviewed this waiver request, and has determined that the supporting documentation provided by the District is sufficient to meet the criteria listed under ARRA, Section 1605(b), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR 176.60–176.170, and in the April 28, 2009, memorandum, “Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009''. The basis for this project waiver is the authorization provided in ARRA, Section 1605(b)(2). Due to the lack of production of this product in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality in order to meet the District's technical specifications, a waiver from the Buy American requirement is justified.
EPA headquarters' March 31, 2009 Delegation of Authority Memorandum provided Regional Administrators with the authority to issue exceptions to Section 1605 of ARRA within the geographic boundaries of their respective regions and with respect to requests by individual grant recipients. Having established both a proper basis to specify the particular good required for this project, and that this manufactured good was not available from a producer in the United States, the District is hereby granted a waiver from the Buy American requirements of ARRA, Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5 for the purchase of three packaged, Memcor XS 48 submerged MFSs, using ARRA funds, as specified in the District's request. This supplementary information constitutes the detailed written justification required by ARRA, Section 1605(c), for waivers “based on a finding under subsection (b).”
Public Law 111–5, section 1605.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 is hereby granting a project waiver of the Buy American requirements of ARRA Section 1605 under the authority of Section 1605(b)(2) [manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality] to the City of Amarillo, Texas (“City”) for the purchase of a 5 horsepower (HP) non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances. As the pump will be submersed in the drinking water wet well, the project specification requires that all wetted components of the pump be manufactured with NSF 61 compliant materials. The 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances is manufactured by foreign manufacturers and no United States manufacturer produces an alternative that meets the City's technical specifications. This is a project specific waiver and only applies to the use of the specified product for the ARRA funded project being proposed. Any other ARRA project that may wish to use the same product must apply for a separate waiver based on the specific project circumstances. The Regional Administrator is making this determination based on the review and recommendations of the EPA Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division. The City has provided sufficient documentation to support its request.
The Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Administration and Resources Management has concurred on this decision to make an exception to Section 1605 of ARRA. This action permits the purchase of a 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances not manufactured in America, for the proposed project being implemented by the City.
Nasim Jahan, Buy American Coordinator, (214) 665–7522, SRF & Projects Section, Water Quality Protection Division, U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
In accordance with ARRA Section 1605(c) and 1605(b)(2), EPA hereby provides notice that it is granting a project waiver of the requirements of Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5, Buy American requirements to the City for the acquisition of a 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances. The City has been unable to find an American made submersible pump with NSF 61 compliant wetted components to meet its specific requirements.
Section 1605 of the ARRA requires that none of the appropriated funds may be used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States unless a waiver is provided to the recipient by EPA. A waiver may be provided if EPA determines that (1) Applying these requirements would be inconsistent with public interest; (2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
The 5 HP non-clog submersible pump is part of a high service pump and transfer station at the City's Osage Treatment Plant, which pumps water out of the wet well of the City's water treatment plant. Because the pump will be submerged in potable drinking water, the project specifications require the pump's components that are in contact with the water in the wet well be constructed of materials that are NSF 61 Standard compliant. In addition, the project specifications require the following materials to be used for given pump parts.
(1) Cast iron: The pump case, motor housing, and impeller.
(2) Stainless steel: Pump shaft (wetted portion), guide rails, lifting chains, fasteners, and metal seal parts.
(3) Viton (a fluoropolymer): O-rings.
(4) Silicon-carbide: Seals.
The City clarified that NSF 61 compliance standards supersede certain components of the project specifications. In particular, the pump case, motor housing, and impeller are required to be constructed of stainless steel, and the seals are required to be fabricated of Viton or EPDM polymer. The City also indicated that the pump is not required to be NSF 61 Standard certified, but is required to have wetted components constructed of materials such as stainless steel that would not leach hazardous materials into the drinking water. The specifications also identified four acceptable manufacturers: Flygt, Fairbanks Morse, Wilo EMU, and Hydromatic. The City contacted all four manufacturers and confirmed that they could not provide a pump manufactured in the U.S. that meets the project specifications.
Based on additional research conducted by EPA Region 6, there does not appear to be any domestic 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances that would meet the City's technical specifications. EPA's national contractor prepared a technical assessment report based on the waiver request submittal. The report confirmed the waiver applicant's claim that there is no American-made 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances.
EPA has also evaluated the City's request to determine if its submission is considered late or if it could be considered timely, as per the OMB Guidance at CFR § 176.120. EPA will generally regard waiver requests with respect to components that were specified in the bid solicitation or in a general/primary construction contract as “late” if submitted after the contract date. However, EPA could also determine that a request be evaluated as timely, though made after the date that the contract was signed, if the need for a waiver was not reasonably foreseeable. If the need for a waiver is reasonably foreseeable, then EPA could still apply discretion in these late cases as per the OMB Guidance, which says “the award official
In this case, there are no U.S. manufacturers that meet the City's project specification for this 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances. The waiver request is
The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ Memorandum, Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, defines reasonably available quantity as “the quantity of iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is available or will be available at the time needed and place needed, and in the proper form or specification as specified in the project plans and design.” The City has incorporated specific technical design requirements for installation of pump in its potable drinking water system. Therefore, it meets the requirements of the “satisfactory quality” criterion for requesting a waiver from the Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5.
The purpose of the ARRA is to stimulate economic recovery in part by funding current infrastructure construction, not to delay projects that are “shovel ready” by requiring utilities, such as the City, to revise their standards and specifications, institute a new bidding process, and potentially choose a more costly, less efficient project. The imposition of ARRA Buy American requirements on such projects otherwise eligible for State Revolving Fund assistance would result in unreasonable delay and thus displace the “shovel ready” status for this project. To further delay construction is in direct conflict with a fundamental economic purpose of the ARRA, which is to create or retain jobs.
The Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division has reviewed this waiver request, and has determined that the supporting documentation provided by the City is sufficient to meet the criteria listed under ARRA, Section 1605(b), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR 176.60–176.170, and in the April 28, 2009, memorandum, Implementation of Buy American provisions of Public Law 111–5, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” The basis for this project waiver is the authorization provided in ARRA, Section 1605(b)(2). Due to the lack of production of this product in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality in order to meet the City's technical specifications, a waiver from the Buy American requirement is justified.
EPA headquarters' March 31, 2009 Delegation of Authority Memorandum provided Regional Administrators with the authority to issue exceptions to Section 1605 of ARRA within the geographic boundaries of their respective regions and with respect to requests by individual grant recipients. Having established both a proper basis to specify the particular good required for this project, and that this manufactured good was not available from a producer in the United States, the City is hereby granted a waiver from the Buy American requirements of ARRA, Section 1605(a) of Public Law 111–5 for the purchase of a 5 HP non-clog submersible pump, with NSF compliant wetted parts and appurtenances, using ARRA funds, as specified in the City's request. This supplementary information constitutes the detailed written justification required by ARRA, Section 1605(c), for waivers “based on a finding under subsection (b).”
Pub. L. 111–5, section 1605.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Comments are requested concerning:(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–0214. For additional information, contact Judith B. Herman, OMD, 202–418–0214 or e-mail
The requirements that the Commission wants continued OMB approval is for the following:
Section 90.523 which requires that nongovernmental organizations, which provide services to protect the safety of life, or property, to obtain a written statement from an authorizing state or local government entity to support the nongovernmental organization's application for the assignment of 700 MHz frequencies.
Section 90.527 states that to prepare the regional plans for the 700 MHz band, the regional planning committees will require input from those entities within the regions that will be eligible to receive licenses under the plans. Entities that seek inclusion in the plan in order to obtain licenses will be third party respondents.
Section 90.1211 the Commission suggested that each 700 MHz region submit a plan on guidelines to be used for sharing the spectrum within the region.
The information will be submitted to the Commission and they will use the information obtained to assign licenses, and also use the information to determine regional spectrum requirements and to develop technical standards. The information will also be used to determine whether prospective licensees will operate in compliance with the Commission's rules. Without such information, the Commission could not accommodate regional requirements or provide for the optimal use of the available frequencies. For information provide to, or exchanged among third parties, the data will be used to establish eligibility.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418–2918.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202–395–5167 or via the Internet at
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418–2918.
Section 74.1251(c) requires FM translator licensee to notify the FCC, in writing, of changes in the primary FM station being retransmitted.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to
For additional information, contact Cathy Williams on (202) 418–2918.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery. The Federal Communications Commission has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before May 2, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via fax at 202–395–5167 or via the Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, (202) 418–0214. For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Judith B. Herman, OMD, 202–418–0214 or e-mail
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods of assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
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 amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR Part 515). Notice is also hereby given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a license.
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 notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 15, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480–0291:
1. Stuart James Sneer and Jeffrey Lee Weldon, both of Mankato, Minnesota, as trustees and individually, and Jennifer Susan Johnson, Chanhassen, Minnesota, as trustee; to control 25 percent or more of the voting shares of Farmers State Corporation, Mankato, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly control voting shares of United Prairie Bank, Mountain Lake, Minnesota. These notificants will join the James and Susan Sneer Family Group, which controls more than 25 percent of Farmers State Corporation.
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 April 25, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105–1579:
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by May 2, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by e-mail at
Voluntary Customer Survey Generic Clearance for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Executive Order 12862 directs agencies that “provide significant services directly to the public” to “survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.” This is a request for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to re-approve for an additional 3 years, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the generic clearance for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to survey the users of AHRQ's work products and services, OMB control number 0935–0106.
Customer surveys will be undertaken by AHRQ to assess its work products and services provided to its customers, to identify problem areas, and to determine how they can be improved. Surveys conducted under this generic clearance are not required by regulation and will not be used by AHRQ to regulate or sanction its customers. Surveys will be entirely voluntary, and information provided by respondents will be combined and summarized so that no individually identifiable information will be released. Proposed information collections submitted under this generic clearance will be reviewed and acted upon by OMB within 14 days of submission to OMB.
In accordance with OMB guidelines for generic clearances for voluntary customer surveys and Executive Order 12862, AHRQ: (1) Has established an independent review process to assure the development, implementation, and analysis of high quality customer surveys within AHRQ; (2) will provide periodic progress reports on the conduct of surveys under the generic approval, summarizing the actual burden; (3) will provide OMB with copies of the survey instruments for inclusion in the docket; and, (4) will notify OMB of any significant changes in proposed survey instruments.
The information collected through focus groups and voluntary customer surveys will be used by AHRQ to identify strengths and weaknesses in products and services to make improvements that are practical and feasible. Information from these customer surveys will be used to plan and redirect resources and efforts to improve or maintain a high quality of service to the lay and health professional public.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated total burden hours for the respondents. Mail surveys are estimated to average 15 minutes, telephone surveys 40 minutes, web-based surveys 10 minutes, focus groups two hours, and in-person interviews are estimated to average 50 minutes. Mail surveys may also be sent to respondents via email, and may include a telephone non-response follow-up. Telephone non-response follow-up for mailed surveys does not count as a telephone survey. The total burden hours for the 3 years of the clearance is estimated to be 10,150 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden for the respondents. The total cost burden for the 3 years of the clearance is estimated to be $340,127.
Information collections conducted under this generic clearance will in some cases be carried out under contract. Assuming the contract cost per survey are $50,000–$100,000, and for each focus group are $20,000, total contract costs could run $720,000 per year.
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Understanding Development Methods from Other Industries to Improve the Design of Consumer Health IT.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by May 2, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by e-mail at
Consumer health information technology (IT) is the collection of tools, technologies, and artifacts that individuals can use to support their health care management tasks (Agarwal and Khuntia, 2009). Consumer health IT can play an important role in patients' efforts to coordinate their care and in ensuring that their personal values and interests help guide all clinical decisions. In order to accomplish this, consumer health IT solutions must take into account the particular needs of the consumer.
Useful consumer health IT products may enhance the quality of health care by empowering individual consumers to take a more active, effective, and collaborative role in their own personal health care. These products could provide the following capabilities to consumers:
• Information storage, archiving, and retrieval: The capabilities to search results of past examinations or lab tests, to interact with electronic versions of their health records, and identify when to seek health care services.
• Health monitoring: The capability to report data (e.g., blood pressure, weight) from various locations.
• Information seeking and searching: The capability to interactively search for a wealth of health-related information.
Despite the potential power of consumer health IT, consumers have not adopted these technologies to the same degree that they have adopted technology products marketed from other consumer product industries. One reason for slow adoption is that the marketplace lacks robust tools that allow for the complexity and diversity of personal health information management (PHIM) practices. These types of practices are influenced by a variety of user and contextual factors, including demographics, personal attitudes, the goals and objectives of users, and the broad range of tasks that
New practices for the development of consumer-facing digital tools are emerging in a variety of industries. The success of information management tools in other industries offers much to be learned and applied to the health care field.
In July of 2009, AHRQ held the Building Bridges: Consumer Needs and the Design of Health Information Technology workshop. The workshop brought together leaders from multiple disciplines, including health informatics, health sciences, information science, consumer health IT, and human factors to discuss the diverse needs of different consumer groups in managing their personal health information, and how these needs could be incorporated into the design of consumer health IT solutions. The outcome of the workshop was a framework to further the design of consumer health IT systems, based on an understanding of practices that consumers use in their PHIM. The final report also included a set of recommendations for additional work in the health IT field related to research and industry and policy. Recognizing that design plays a key role in consumer use of personal tools, one research-related recommendation that resulted from the workshop was to investigate the application of design methodologies used in other industries to consumer health IT design.
This project has the following goals:
(1) To investigate the product development approaches, methods, and philosophies from a variety of industries in order to identify promising design and development techniques that will be most applicable to consumer health IT.
(2) To disseminate the project findings and recommendations to vendors and developers of consumer health IT products to assist them in developing health IT products that are consumer-focused. This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat and the University of Wisconsin, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research (1) on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to health care technologies, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(5), and (2) to advance the use of computer-based health records, 42 U.S.C. 299b–3(a)(6).
To achieve the goals of this project the following activities will be implemented:
(1) Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with key informants identified as being experts in the design, management, and/or marketing of consumer products that are relevant to consumer health IT products. The purpose of these interviews is to gather information related to their experiences in developing consumer products, focusing on the design processes that their company uses, how they segment the market, the role of users in testing during the various product development phases, and the factors that affect the success of their product development approaches.
(2) The final report will be provided in PDF format for easy download from the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health IT Web site.
Information collected by the study will support the development of recommendations for those developers and vendors who design, develop, and market consumer health IT products. The ultimate goal is to improve consumer health IT design and impact the adoption of this technology by consumers. This project will identify principles that led to the success of other consumer products, so that they can be evaluated for extension to the design and development of consumer health IT.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this research. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with no more than 15 individuals representing a variety of consumer-focused industries. The average burden will be 90 minutes per interview. The total annual burden is estimated to be 23 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondent's time to participate in this research. The total annual cost burden is estimated to be $1,770.
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated total and annualized cost to the Federal Government for this research project. Since this project's activities will span a single year the total and annualized costs are identical. The estimated total cost is $409,388.
In accordance with the above-cited Paperwork Reduction Act legislation, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an email to
Registration of Individuals Displaced by the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Pilot Project)—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury, and Environmental Health (ONDIEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico near New Orleans, Louisiana, and became one of the most deadly and destructive storms in U.S. history. Also occurring in 2005, Hurricane Rita was the fourth-most intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the most intense tropical cyclone ever observed in the Gulf of Mexico. Following the initial phase of the response, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assumed the primary role for housing displaced persons over the intermediate term. To support those needing temporary housing, FEMA provided over 143,000 travel trailers, park homes, and mobile homes for persons displaced by the above mentioned storms. However, some persons living in trailers complained of an odor or of eye or respiratory tract irritation.
FEMA entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/ATSDR on August 16, 2007 to conduct a comprehensive public health assessment, based on objective and credible research, of air quality conditions present in FEMA housing units to guide FEMA policy makers and inform the public as to the actual conditions in the field and any actions required to better promote a safe and healthful environment for the disaster victims FEMA housed in the units. FEMA's agreement with the CDC includes an initial formaldehyde exposure assessment as well as a subsequent long-term study of the health effects among residents if feasible. Formaldehyde testing conducted and evaluated by the CDC pursuant to the initial exposure assessment has identified the need to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a national registry to identify and monitor the health of disaster victims who occupied FEMA-provided temporary housing units. The establishment of such a registry would complement the long-term health effects study set forth in the FEMA–CDC Interagency Agreement.
The goal of the proposed pilot registry will be to test the feasibility of contacting and enrolling members of the targeted group in a registry.
A pre-registration dataset will be created before enrollment. This dataset will be populated with contact information of the exposed population—occupants of temporary housing units. FEMA will provide the dataset for this pilot registry.
A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system based on a paper questionnaire will be used during all interviews to collect data for this project. The first part will consist of screening questions to determine eligibility for enrollment. The second part will contain contact information of the registrant and other household members, demographics, and health status questions focusing on respiratory outcomes and cancer.
The registry will include respondents who occupied FEMA-provided temporary housing units. The two-minute screening questionnaire will be administered to a total of 8,000 respondents. Annualized over a two year period, 4,000 respondents will be screened. The 25 minute main questionnaire will be administered to a total of 5,000 respondents. Annualized over a two year period, 2,500 temporary housing unit occupants will complete the main questionnaire.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 1176.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639–5960 or send an e-mail to
Community-based Organization (CBO) Monitoring and Evaluation Project (CMEP) of Respect—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP)
CDC began formally partnering with CBOs in the late 1980s to expand the reach of HIV prevention efforts. CBOs were, and continue to be, recognized as important partners in HIV prevention because of their history and credibility with target populations and their access to groups that may not be easily reached. Over time, CDC's program for HIV prevention by CBOs has grown in size, scope, and complexity to respond to changes in the epidemic, including the diffusion and implementation of Effective Behavioral Interventions (EBIs) for HIV prevention.
CDC's EBIs have been shown to be effective under controlled research environments, but there is limited data on intervention implementation and client outcomes in real-world settings (as implemented by CDC-funded CBOs). The purpose of CMEP–Respect is to (a) improve the performance of CDC-funded CBOs delivering particular individual- or group-level behavioral interventions by monitoring changes in clients' self-reported HIV transmission risk behaviors after participating in the intervention; and (b) assess the fidelity of the implementation of the selected intervention at the CBO. The project also plans to conduct process monitoring of the delivery of the intervention in terms of recruitment, retention, data collection, data entry, and data management. Four CBOs will receive supplemental funding under PS 10–1003 over a five-year period to participate in CMEP–Respect.
From July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015, CBOs will conduct outcome and process monitoring for this project. Each agency will recruit 400 men who are 18 years of age and older, report having had anal sex with a male in the last 12 months, and are enrolled in Respect to participate in CMEP–Respect. Each participant will complete a 20 minute, self administered, computer based interview prior to their participation in the Respect intervention and an 18 minute, self administered, computer based interview at two follow-up time points (90- and 180-days following the Respect intervention) to assess their HIV and STD related attitudes and behavioral risks. CBOs will be expected to retain 80% of these participants at both follow-up interviews.
Throughout the project, funded CBOs will be responsible for managing the daily procedures of CMEP–Respect to ensure that all required activities are performed, all deadlines are met, and quality assurance plans, policies and procedures are upheld. CBOs will be responsible for participating in all CDC-sponsored grantee meetings related to CMEP–Respect. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 342.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning these items. Copies are not available through the contact persons. (
Among other things, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which pay for health care and related services for Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients. Administration of the two programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare beneficiaries and Medicaid recipients, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with regional offices, State governments, State Medicaid agencies, State survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, and others. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act). We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer the programs efficiently.
The statute requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This notice is organized so that a reader may review the subjects published during the subject quarter to determine whether any are of
To aid the reader, we have organized and divided this current listing into 16 addenda:
Addendum I: Publication Dates of the Most Recent Quarterly Listings of Program Issuances.
Addendum II: Description of Manuals, Memoranda, and CMS Rulings.
Addendum III: Medicare and Medicaid Manual Instructions.
Addendum IV: Regulation Documents Published in the
Addendum V: National Coverage Determinations.
Addendum VI: FDA-approved Category B IDEs.
Addendum VII: Approval Numbers for the Collections of Information.
Addendum VIII: Medicare-approved Carotid Stent Facilities.
Addendum IX: American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry Sites.
Addendum X: Active CMS Coverage-Related Guidance Documents.
Addendum XI: Special One-Time Notices Regarding National Coverage Provisions.
Addendum XII: National Oncologic Positron Emission Tomography Registry (NOPR) Sites.
Addendum XIII: Medicare-approved Ventricular Assist Device (Destination Therapy) Facilities.
Addendum XIV: Lung Volume Reduction Surgery.
Addendum XV: Medicare-approved Bariatric Surgery Facilities.
Addendum XVI: FDG–PET for Dementia and Neurodegenerative Diseases Clinical Trials.
Those wishing to subscribe to program manuals should contact either the Government Printing Office (GPO) or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at the following addresses: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,
In addition, individual manual transmittals and Program Memoranda listed in this notice can be purchased from NTIS. Interested parties should identify the transmittal(s) they want. GPO or NTIS can give complete details on how to obtain the publications they sell. Additionally, most manuals are available at the following Internet address:
Regulations and notices are published in the daily
The
We publish rulings on an infrequent basis. CMS Rulings are decisions of the Administrator that serve as precedent final opinions and orders and statements of policy and interpretation. CMS Rulings provide clarification and interpretation of complex or ambiguous provisions of the law or regulations relating to Medicare, Medicaid, Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review, private health insurance, and related matters. Interested individuals can obtain copies from the nearest CMS Regional Office or review them at the nearest regional depository library. On occasion, we publish rulings in the
Our laws, regulations, and manuals are also available on CD–ROM and may be purchased from GPO or NTIS on a subscription or single copy basis. The Superintendent of Documents list ID is HCLRM, and the stock number is 717–139–00000–3. The following material is on the CD–ROM disk:
• Titles XI, XVIII, and XIX of the Act.
• CMS-related regulations.
• CMS manuals and monthly revisions.
• CMS program memoranda.
The titles of the Compilation of the Social Security Laws are current as of January 1, 2009. (Updated titles of the Social Security Laws are available on the Internet at
Because of complaints about the unreadability of the Appendices (Interpretive Guidelines) in the State Operations Manual (SOM), as of March 1995, we deleted these appendices from CD–ROM. We intend to re-visit this issue in the near future and, with the aid of newer technology, we may again be able to include the appendices on CD–ROM. Any cost report forms incorporated in the manuals are included on the CD–ROM disk as LOTUS files. LOTUS software is needed to view the reports once the files have been copied to a personal computer disk.
Transmittals or Program Memoranda can be reviewed at a local Federal Depository Library (FDL). Under the FDL program, government publications are sent to approximately 1,400 designated libraries throughout the United States. Some FDLs may have arrangements to transfer material to a local library not designated as an FDL. Contact any library to locate the nearest FDL.
In addition, individuals may contact regional depository libraries that receive and retain at least one copy of most Federal Government publications, either in printed or microfilm form, for use by the general public. These libraries provide reference services and interlibrary loans; however, they are not sales outlets. Individuals may obtain information about the location of the nearest regional depository library from any library.
For each CMS publication listed in Addendum III, CMS publication and transmittal numbers are shown. To help FDLs locate the materials, use the CMS publication and transmittal numbers. For example, to find the Medicare National Coverage Determination publication titled Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (HSCT) for Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) use CMS-Pub. 100–03, Transmittal No. 127.
The complete registry lists for Category B IDE numbers, National Cardiovascular Data Registry Sites, Carotid Stent Facilities, approved Bariatric Surgery Facilities, National Oncologic PET Registry Sites, approved Ventricular Assist Device Facilities, approved Lung Volume Reduction Surgery Facilities, and PET AD can be found on the CMS coverage Web site at
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program; and Program No. 93.714, Medical Assistance Program).
This addendum lists the publication dates of the most recent quarterly listings of program issuances.
An extensive descriptive listing of Medicare manuals and memoranda was published in the June 9, 1988
A national coverage determination (NCD) is a determination by the Secretary with respect to whether or not a particular item or service is covered nationally under Title XVIII of the Act, but does not include a determination of what code, if any, is assigned to a particular item or service covered under this title, or determination with respect to the amount of payment made for a particular item or service so covered. We include below all of the NCDs that were issued during the quarter covered by this notice. The entries below include information concerning completed decisions as well as sections on program and decision memoranda, which also announce decisions or, in some cases, explain why it was not appropriate to issue an NCD. We identify completed decisions by the section of the NCDM in which the decision appears, the title, the date the publication was issued, and the effective date of the decision. Information on completed decisions as well as pending decisions has also been posted on the CMS Web site at
Below we list all approval numbers for collections of information in the referenced sections of CMS regulations in Title 42; Title 45, Subchapter C; and Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. This information is available at
On March 17, 2005, we issued our decision memorandum on carotid artery stenting. We determined that carotid artery stenting with embolic protection is reasonable and necessary only if performed in facilities that have been determined to be competent in performing the evaluation, procedure, and follow-up necessary to ensure optimal patient outcomes. We have created a list of minimum standards for facilities modeled in part on professional society statements on competency. All facilities must at least meet our standards in order to receive coverage for carotid artery stenting for high risk patients. This notice reflects the changes, deletions and additions for this quarter. A full list of approved facilities is maintained on the CMS Web site at
In order to obtain reimbursement, Medicare national coverage policy requires that providers implanting OCDs for primary prevention clinical indications (that is, patients without a history of cardiac arrest or spontaneous arrhythmia) report data on each primary prevention ICD procedure. This policy became effective January 27, 2005. Details of the clinical indications that are covered by Medicare and their respective data reporting requirements are availabe in the Medicare National Coverage Determination (NCD) Manual, which is on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Serivce (CMS) Web site at
A provider can use either of two mechanisms to satisfy the data reporting requirement. Patients may be enrolled either in an Investigational Device Exemption trial studying ICDs as identified by the FDA or in the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC–NCDR) ICD registry. Therefore, in order for a beneficiary to receive a Medicare-covered ICD implantation for primary prevention, the benficiary must receive the scan in a facility that participates in the ACC–NCDR ICD registry. We maintain a list of facilities that have been enrolled in this registry. Addendum IX includes the facilities that have been designated in the quarter covered by this notice. The entire list of facilities that participate in the ACC–NCDR ICD registry can be found at
In the September 24, 2004
Addendum X includes a list of active CMS guidance documents as of the ending date of the period covered by this notice. To obtain full-text copies of these documents, visit the CMS Coverage Web site at
As medical technologies, the contexts under which they are delivered, and the health needs of Medicare beneficiaries grow increasingly complex, our national coverage determination (NCD) process must adapt to accommodate these complexities. As part of this adaptation, our national coverage decisions often include multi-faceted coverage determinations, which may place conditions on the patient populations eligible for coverage of a particular item or service, the providers who deliver a particular service, or the methods in which data are collected to supplement the delivery of the item or service (such as participation in a clinical trial).
We outline these conditions as we release new or revised NCDs. However, details surrounding these conditions may need to be shared with the public as “one-time notices” in the
There were no Special One-Time Notices Regarding National Coverage Provisions published this quarter.
In January 2005, we issued our decision memorandum on positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which stated that CMS would cover PET scans for particular oncologic indications, as long as they were performed in the context of a clinical study. We have since recognized the National Oncologic PET Registry as one of these clinical studies. Therefore, in order for a beneficiary to receive a Medicare-covered PET scan, the beneficiary must receive the scan in a facility that participates in the Registry. You can access the full list of facilities at
On October 1, 2003, we issued our decision memorandum on ventricular assist devices (VADs) for the clinical indication of destination therapy. We determined that VADs used as destination therapy are reasonable and necessary only if performed in facilities that have been determined to have the experience and infrastructure to ensure optimal patient outcomes. We established facility standards and an application process. All facilities were required to meet our standards in order to receive coverage for VADs implanted as destination therapy.
The following facilities have met the CMS facility standards for destination therapy VADs during this quarter. You can access the full list at
The following three types of facilities are eligible for reimbursement for Lung Volume Reduction Surgery (LVRS):
• National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) approved (Beginning 05/07/2007, these will no longer automatically qualify and can qualify only with the other programs);
• Credentialed by the Joint Commission (formerly, the Joint Commision on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)) under their Disease Specific Certification Program for LVRS; and
• Medicare approved for lung transplants.
Only the first two types are in the list. You can access the full list of facilities at
On February 21, 2006, we issued our decision memorandum on bariatric surgery procedures. We determined that bariatric surgical procedures are reasonable and necessary for Medicare beneficiaries who have a body-mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 35, have at least one co-morbidity related to obesity and have been previously unsuccessful with medical treatment for obesity.
This decision also stipulated that covered bariatric surgery procedures are reasonable and necessary only when performed at facilities that are:
(1) Certified by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) as a Level 1 Bariatric Surgery Center (program standards and requirements in effect on February 15, 2006); or
(2) Certified by the American Society for Bariatric Surgery (ASBS) as a Bariatric Surgery Center of Excellence (BSCOE) (program standards and requirements in effect on February 15, 2006).
The following facilities have met our minimum facility standards for bariatric surgery and have been certified by American College of Surgeons (ACS) or American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) during this quarter. You can access the full listing at
In a National Coverage Determination for fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG–PET) for Dementia and Neurodegenerative Diseases (220.6.13), we indicated that an FDG–PET scan is considered reasonable and necessary in patients with mild cognitive impairment or early dementia only in the context of an approved clinical trial that contains patient safeguards and protections to ensure proper administration, use, and evaluation of the FDG–PET scan. You can access the full listing at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 13 new animal drug applications (NADAs). In a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Withdrawal of approval is effective April 11, 2011.
John Bartkowiak, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9079, e-mail:
The sponsors of the 13 approved NADAs listed in table 1 have requested that FDA withdraw approval because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116
In a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 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, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The ATTC Network, a nationwide, multidisciplinary resource that draws upon the knowledge, experience and latest research of recognized experts in the field of addictions and behavioral health, is a unique CSAT initiative formed in 1993 in response to a shortage of well-trained addiction and behavioral health professionals in the public sector. The ATTC Network works to enhance the knowledge, skills and aptitudes of the addiction/behavioral health treatment and recovery services workforce by disseminating current health services research from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute of Mental Health, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, National Institute of Justice, and other sources, as well as other SAMHSA programs. To accomplish this, the ATTC Network (1) develops and updates state-of-the-art research based curricula and professional development training, (2) coordinates and facilitates meetings between Single State Authorities, Provider Associations and other key stakeholders, and (3) provides ongoing technical assistance to individuals and organizations at the local, regional and national levels.
In response to the emerging shortages of qualified addiction treatment and recovery services professionals, SAMHSA/CSAT instructed the ATTC National Office to lead the ATTC Network in the development and implementation of a national addiction treatment workforce data collection effort of those individuals who work in substance use specialty treatment services. The purpose of this survey and data collection is to gather information to guide the formation of effective national, regional, state, and organizational policies and strategies aimed at successfully recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of adequately prepared providers who are able to respond to the growing needs of those affected by substance use and mental health disorders; including co-occurring disorders and trauma. This data collection will offer a unique perspective on the clinical treatment field so that CSAT and the ATTC Network can better understand current successful strategies and methodologies being used in the workforce and develop appropriate training for emerging trends in the field.
Although SAMHSA/CSAT is the primary target audience for data collection findings, it is expected that the data collected and resulting reports will also be useful to the ATTC Network, as well as to Single State Agencies, provider organizations, professional organizations, training and education entities, and individuals in the workforce.
Data will be collected from two main sources: 1. A random sample of clinical directors or a designated direct care supervisor from facilities listed in the I–SATS database. 2. A national sample of clinical directors and key thought leaders, identified by CSAT in conjunction with the ATTC network, in the substance use disorders treatment field. Respondents will be asked to participate in at least one of three (3) distinct methods. They are:
In addition to this original data collection, existing national data sets
The objectives of the national addiction treatment workforce data collection effort are to understand the national demographics of the current workforce and how this differs across regions and states, in addition to exploring issues related to workforce development: 1. Staff training, recruitment and retention; 2. Professional development; and 3. Support for strategies and methodologies to prepare, recruit, retain, and sustain the workforce. To accomplish these objectives, CSAT outlined three primary questions to be addressed by the workforce data collection:
For the purposes of the ATTC data collection effort, this means that we will comprehensively describe the workforce comprised of direct care staff, clinical supervisors, and administrators in agencies represented in the Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I–SATS).
For the purposes of this data collection, the ATTC Network will identify the growth and capacity-building needs over the next five years of direct care staff, clinical supervisors, and administrators in agencies represented in the I–SATS registry.
Identification of potentially effective strategies used to prepare and recruit individuals to enter the workforce (as previously defined), and encourage them to remain in the workforce and stay current on clinical and other job related skills (
This will be the first national survey of the substance use disorders treatment workforce. The quantitative survey and the qualitative interviews and analysis will be used to provide a snapshot of the current state of the addiction treatment workforce as it relates to demographics, workforce development needs, and retention and maintenance of a strong workforce. These data will provide national benchmark data that can be used to inform ongoing policy and practice.
Information collected from this workforce data collection will help CSAT and the ATTC Network to better understand the needs of the workforce and categorize some best practices for providing support to the field now and in the future. Emerging trends in addiction and/or co-occurring and trauma treatment and the existence of mental health problems in substance use disorder treatment and recovery services will be identified and shared with those in the addiction/behavioral health treatment field so appropriate training and funding can be allocated. The information from this data collection will also help CSAT identify areas where deficiencies in substance use and/or co-occurring disorder and trauma treatment exist and provide assistance to regions (and states) to help them develop and adopt strategies for addressing this.
The chart below summarizes the annualized burden for this project.
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
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670–NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0602, Arlington, VA 20598–0602. E-mailed requests should go to Cristiena Galeckas at
•
•
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigns DHS the responsibility to lead the national effort to identify, prioritize, and assess the nature and scope of threats to the United States and develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR). At DHS, this responsibility is managed by IP within NPPD. In Fiscal Year 2006, IP engaged in the annual development of a list of CIKR assets and systems to improve IP's CIKR prioritization efforts; this list is called the Critical Infrastructure List. The Critical Infrastructure List includes assets and systems that, if destroyed, damaged or otherwise compromised, could result in significant consequences on a regional or national scale.
The IP Data Call is administered out of the IP Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD). The IP Data Call provides opportunities for states and territories to collaborate with DHS and its Federal partners in CIKR protection. DHS, state, and territorial Homeland Security Advisors (HSA), Sector Specific Agencies (SSA), and territories build their CIKR data using
IP/IICD will use the results of the IP Data Call Survey to determine levels of customer satisfaction with the IP Data Call process and the IP Data Call application and prioritize future improvements. The results will also allow IP to appropriate funds cost effectively based on user need, and improve the process and application.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670–NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Mail Stop 0602, Arlington, VA 20598–0602. E-mailed requests should be sent to Cristiena Galeckas at
•
•
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigns DHS the responsibility to lead the national effort to identify, prioritize, and assess the nature and scope of threats to the United States and develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR). At DHS, this responsibility is managed by IP within NPPD. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2006, IP engaged in the annual development of a list of CIKR assets and systems to improve IP's CIKR prioritization efforts; this list is called the Critical Infrastructure List. The Critical Infrastructure List includes assets and systems that, if destroyed, damaged or otherwise compromised, could result in significant consequences on a regional or national scale. This list provides a common basis for DHS and its security partners during the undertaking of CIKR protective planning efforts to keep our Nation safe.
Collection of this information is directed and supported by Public Law 110–53 “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” August 3, 2007; and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 7, “Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection,” December 17, 2003.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670–NEW.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP) will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP, Attn: Emily R. Hickey (
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
The PCII Program was created by Congress under the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, (Sections 211–215, Title II, Subtitle B of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296 (CII Act) to encourage voluntary information sharing by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and protected systems. The PCII Program is implemented by 6 CFR part 29, Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information; Final Rule (the Regulation), which was issued in 2006. PCII refers to validated and marked critical infrastructure information not customarily in the public domain and related to the security of critical infrastructure or protected systems, which is voluntarily submitted to DHS for homeland security purposes. The PCII Program offers protection from public disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act, state and local sunshine laws, and civil litigation. The PCII Program is administered by IP's Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD).
The PCII Program helps government analysts, emergency responders, and other homeland security professionals access data about facilities and systems on which the Nation depends. The PCII Program is responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulation's uniform procedures for the handling, use, dissemination, and safeguarding of PCII. In this capacity, the PCII Program oversees a community of stakeholders, including submitters of CII, authorized users of PCII and accredited Federal, State and local entities with homeland security duties. This survey is designed to gather information from PCII Officers that can be used to improve these relationships and to maximize the value that the PCII Program is offering to its Federal, State, and local government users. Both the CII Act of 2002 and its implementing regulations stress the voluntary nature of the PCII Program, so collecting information that will assist in making the PCII Program attractive to its stakeholders will allow the PCII Program to better accomplish the statute's stated goals.
The data collected in this survey will be used by the PCII Program to improve relationships with stakeholders and maximize the value of the program. The survey data collected is for internal PCII Program and IP use only. The PCII Program will use the results of the Stakeholder Survey to determine levels of satisfaction with the PCII Program and identify areas that require additional communication, identify areas for improvement with the PCII Management System (PCIIMS), and help determine the future direction of the Program.
The survey is administered using a web-based survey tool, Vovici Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM). Automating the PCII Stakeholder Survey reduces the respondent burden of responding to a paper survey or a telephone interview. The staff burden of manually administering a survey and accurately collecting data is also reduced. Automation also captures participants' typed comments, eliminating time-consuming transcription and manual inaccuracies.
The PCII Stakeholder Survey does not collect personally identifiable information. The survey instrument states that the survey is voluntary and the information will be kept private or anonymous to the extent allowable by law. Data collected is for internal PCII Program and IP use only.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
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,
60-Day Notice of Information Collection for Review; Secure Communities IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability State and Local Agency Assessment; OMB Control No. 1653–0040.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 31, 2011.
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice, and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer/OAA/Records Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, SW., STOP 5705 Washington, DC 20536–5705.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for sixty days until May 31, 2011. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Comments and/or questions; requests for a copy of the proposed information collection instrument, with instructions; or inquiries for additional information should be directed to: Office of the Chief Financial Officer/OAA/Records Branch, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street, SW., STOP 5705 Washington, DC 20536–5705.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces HUD's FHA Home Energy Retrofit Loan Pilot Program (Retrofit Pilot Program or Pilot Program) known as FHA PowerSaver. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 directs HUD to conduct an Energy Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program targeted to the single family housing market. The Retrofit Pilot Program meets this statutory directive and provides funding to support that effort. The announcement of this pilot program follows a November 10, 2010,
Patricia McBarron, Office of Single Family Housing Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410–8000; telephone number 202–708–2121 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
On November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69112), HUD published in the
As discussed in detail in the November 10, 2010, notice, in considering how to structure the pilot program directed by the 2010 Appropriations Act, HUD looked to the findings of the Administration's Recovery Through Retrofit Report,
FHA's Title I program is authorized by section 2 of Title I of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1703), and its regulations are codified in 24 CFR part 201.
As provided in the November 10, 2010, notice, FHA's goals for the Retrofit Pilot Program are: (1) To facilitate the testing and scaling of a mainstream mortgage product for home energy retrofit loans that includes liquidity options for lenders, resulting in more affordable and widely available loans than are currently available for home energy retrofits; and (2) to establish a robust set of data on home energy efficiency improvements and their impact—on energy savings, borrower income, property value, and other metrics—for the purpose of driving development and expansion of mainstream mortgage products to support home energy efficiency retrofits. After determining the viability of the Title I program to achieve these goals, FHA also determined that several changes to the program are necessary for the purposes of the Retrofit Pilot Program. These changes are described in detail in Section II.F. of the November 10, 2010, notice. (
In the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD solicited public comment on the proposed structure of the Retrofit Pilot Program, and also invited interested lenders to advise HUD of their interest, as described in Appendix A of the notice, so that HUD may contact them and explore their interest and the possibility of their participation in the pilot program.
At the close of the public comment period on December 27, 2010, HUD received 49 public comments. HUD reviewed the comments, which are addressed in section IV of this notice, and made some changes to the Retrofit Pilot Program in response to public comment and further consideration of issues by HUD. The changes made to the Retrofit Pilot Program are addressed in Section III, which immediately follows.
HUD has made the following changes to the November 10, 2010, notice:
1.
In addition, this notice clarifies that HUD grant funds may not be used to directly subsidize or otherwise “write-down” the interest rate on PowerSaver loans. Non-Federal grant funds may be used for this purpose.
2.
3.
4.
a. Ground source heat pump systems (instead of “geothermal heat pumps” as in the November 10, 2010, notice) must be installed in accordance with ANSI/ACCA Standard 5 QJ–2010; and
b. Wind turbines must:
(i) Have a nameplate capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts;
(ii) Have performance and safety certification to:
• The International Electromechanical Commission (IEC) standards from an accredited product certification body, or
• Certification to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) standards from the Small Wind Certification Council (SWCC) or a nationally recognized testing laboratory; and
(iii) Be installed by an installer with North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Small Wind Installer Certification or small wind turbine installation training from an accredited training organization.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Comments were submitted by lenders and representatives of the lending industry; home performance contractors and representatives of the home performance/contracting industry (including one pension fund); local officials and representatives of state energy agencies; environmental and public health organizations; providers of energy services and technologies; community development financial institutions; and members of the general public. This section presents a summary of the significant issues raised by the commenters on the November 10, 2010, notice and HUD's responses to these issues.
In listing the locations that received funding under the Department of Energy (DOE) Better Buildings program, all of which are automatically eligible locations for lenders to serve in the pilot program, the Proposed Notice inadvertently excluded Nashville, Tennessee, from the list. This notice corrects this error; Nashville is an automatically eligible location for a lender to serve under the pilot program. In addition, in December 2010, DOE announced that the following State Energy Programs were integrated into BetterBuildings: Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Washington, and Virginia. As a result, these states are automatically eligible locations for lenders to serve under the pilot program.
Finally, this notice provides that areas where the Home Performance with Energy Star program is available are automatically eligible locations for lenders to serve under the pilot program.
Several commenters suggested that certain communities that are not covered under DOE's Better Buildings Program should be eligible markets for lenders to serve in the pilot program. As noted in the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD strongly encourages lenders to serve such markets, provided lenders can demonstrate, through their Expressions of Interest in participating, that such locations are viable markets for the deployment of PowerSaver-insured loans. On December 16, 2010, HUD posted additional guidance on its Web site to assist lenders in this area:
Several commenters recommended that HUD allow institutions that may not be FHA-approved lenders, such as community development financial institutions and state energy agencies, to be eligible lenders under the pilot program. HUD hopes and expects that a wide range of entities will express interest in participating in the pilot program, including entities that have not participated in FHA programs in the past. However, as required by the National Housing Act, any entity that wishes to make loans insured by FHA under the pilot program must hold a valid Title I contract of insurance and be approved by the Secretary. HUD notes that approved Title II lenders may obtain Title I eligibility under an expedited process.
Several commenters suggested uses of the incentive grant funds available to lenders under the pilot program in addition to the uses specified in the November 10, 2010, notice. Some commenters recommended allowing grant funds to be used to support a lender's costs associated with creating or enhancing systems necessary to deliver PowerSaver loans.
HUD agrees with this suggestion and this notice specifies that such use is allowed with grant funds under the
Several commenters suggested that HUD grant funds be available to lenders to set up loan loss reserves. Due to the current insurance structure, HUD does not view this as a viable or optimal use of HUD grant funds for the purposes of the pilot program and declines to make this change. HUD notes that many communities have access to other funds through DOE and other sources that may be available for such purposes. HUD is encouraging lenders to work in partnership with other entities through the pilot program and will evaluate lender Expressions of Interest to participate in part on the extent to which lenders propose to do so. HUD's intention is to provide lenders the flexibility to use funds so long as any use delivers demonstrable benefit to borrowers, such as by making loans more affordable or available. One commenter recommended that HUD ensure that lenders who propose to use grant funds to lower the interest rate on PowerSaver loans they originate do not “over subsidize” loans. HUD will work closely with each lender to size and scope the lender's grant payments so that the payments have the most beneficial impact in the market. As stated in the November 10, 2010, notice, the amount of payment to each lender and the eligible uses of funds by each lender will be determined by HUD based on the lender's Expression of Interest. A significant factor in determining payment amounts to each lender will be the number of loans the lender anticipates making during the 2-year period of the pilot program. Lenders were required to report to HUD on their use of incentive payments funds.
One commenter recommended that HUD require lenders to secure the approval of their Expressions of Interest from “existing energy efficiency program officials” before submitting them to HUD and suggested HUD share Expressions of Interest with “state energy offices” in states that each lender proposes to serve. HUD declines to make this change, as lender Expressions of Interest are nonbinding, and so may change as lenders finalize the details of their participation in discussions with HUD, and may contain proprietary information. The same commenter encouraged HUD to ensure participating lenders collaborate closely with state energy efforts and other initiatives that are currently supporting home energy improvements in markets the lender proposes. HUD does in fact intend to do this, as suggested in the November 10, 2010, notice (with reference to the importance of partnerships with public sector agencies), and will evaluate lender Expressions of Interest in part on this basis.
Several commenters recommended broadening the definition of eligible properties under the pilot program. The following property types were recommended: attached and semidetached single unit, owner-occupied principal residences; manufactured homes; and multifamily properties. HUD agrees with the suggestion to allow attached and semidetached single unit, owner-occupied principal residences, in addition to detached properties of that type. Such properties are fully within any common definition of “single family housing” and represent an important segment of the housing stock in many communities. This notice reflects this change. Further, HUD has clarified that condominium units that otherwise meet the criteria of an eligible single family property are also eligible properties under the pilot program.
HUD declines to make further changes to eligible property types. HUD fully agrees with the statements by commenters that many manufactured homes and multifamily properties and their residents would benefit from energy improvements. However, as noted in the November 10, 2010, notice, the PowerSaver pilot program is being implemented under the statutory directive from Congress to create a pilot program directed at the single family housing market.
Several commenters addressed the subject of eligible uses of loan proceeds. Some commenters recommended that the list of eligible improvements directly related to home energy performance be revised and expanded. Others recommended that HUD allow borrowers flexibility to use loan proceeds to fund costs associated with improvements that are not on the list. With respect to the first set of comments, HUD has made a revision to the list of eligible improvements. Specifically, this notice adds replacement windows that meet the most recent Energy Star specifications to the list of eligible improvements that may be funded under the PowerSaver program.
In addition, this notice makes the following revisions with respect to eligible improvements on the list provided in the November 10, 2010, notice:
1. Ground source heat pump systems (instead of “geothermal heat pumps” as in the November 10, 2010, notice) must be installed in accordance with ANSI/ACCA Standard 5 QJ–2010; and
2. Wind turbines must:
(a) Have a nameplate capacity of no more than 100 kilowatts;
(b) Have performance and safety certification to:
• The IEC standards from an accredited product certification body, or
• Certification to the AWEA standard from the SWCC or a nationally recognized testing laboratory; and
(c) Be installed by an installer with North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Small Wind Installer Certification or small wind turbine installation training from an accredited training organization.
Other commenters recommended that the list of eligible improvements include “home energy management systems” and “home lighting systems.” HUD declines to make these changes. While HUD agrees that improvements consistent with these terms can improve home energy performance, Title I Letter 470 provides that property improvement for the purposes of the program must “[i]n general * * * be permanent, hard wired or hard plumbed to the property.” Another commenter recommended stronger and more prescriptive requirements with respect to insulation, sealing, skylights, and air conditioning systems. HUD declines to make these changes. HUD believes that these recommendations generally represent a more aggressive set of requirements than is reasonable and necessary to apply across the board to a national pilot program. HUD recognizes that in every area of energy-related home improvements, technology and practice is continually improving. At this early stage in the development of a market for energy efficient home improvements, HUD believes the list of eligible improvements as revised in this notice strikes the right balance between improving home energy performance and ensuring a sufficiently broad range of homeowners and communities can benefit from the pilot program.
One commenter recommended that power purchase agreements (PPAs) or contracts with third-party owners to use electricity generated by on-site photovoltaic systems, be allowed as eligible improvements, subject to certain conditions. HUD is supportive of innovative efforts to expand the deployment of clean energy in the residential sector, specifically including through PPAs, subject to certain borrower disclosures and protections. The recommendation represents a broader interpretation than generally has been made of the term “property improvement.” (The Title I program on which the pilot program is based is authorized to support property improvements.) HUD believes that this proposed recommendation is worthy of further consideration and is interested in better understanding the underwriting and operational issues, whether the recommendation is an eligible activity under the Title I program, and the risks and protections for homeowners as well as FHA. While HUD declines to make the recommended change at this time, it may reconsider this decision in the future based on additional analysis.
With respect to recommendations regarding more flexible use of loan proceeds, HUD agrees with commenters that flexibility is appropriate and likely necessary to encourage and enable many homeowners to fund home energy improvements, which many will likely do as part of a broader remodeling or renovation of their home. HUD also agrees with one commenter that suggested it would be important to ensure homeowners can make basic health and safety-related improvements at the time of a home energy improvement job. At a nascent stage of consumer awareness and interest in home energy improvements, HUD believes it is important to make financing products as appealing and marketable as possible, while maintaining the focus on the policy goal of more energy efficient homes. HUD notes that leading state and local home energy improvement loan programs, as well as the Fannie Mae Energy Loan product, allow significant flexibility in the use of loan proceeds on this basis.
Section V.F.4(b) of this notice specifies that homeowners may use up to 25 percent of PowerSaver loan proceeds to fund certain property improvements identified in Title I Letter 470 as eligible improvements under the Title I program. A copy of Title I Letter 470 may be downloaded at:
HUD recognizes that such flexibility may add some complexity to aspects of the evaluation of the pilot program. However, HUD believes the reporting requirements of the program, which will generate data on the specific energy improvement measures funded with each loan, will be sufficient to meet the evaluation goals in this area.
Also with respect to eligible uses of loan proceeds, several commenters recommended that HUD require that homeowners avail themselves of a home energy audit or rating to be eligible for a PowerSaver loan. HUD declines to require audits/ratings in connection with PowerSaver loans at this time. Audit/rating approaches, protocols, technologies, and data appear to vary substantially. HUD is concerned that there is not an industry consensus or uniform standard for energy audits/ratings. (HUD notes that one commenter suggested such standards are in development by one industry group and may be available in early 2011; HUD will be interested in following this development.) DOE is currently piloting the new Home Energy Score program, which includes an energy audit component. Once the Home Energy Score pilot program is complete, HUD may revisit the required use of an energy audit. In addition, it is HUD's understanding that comprehensive audits/ratings can cost as much as $500, adding a significant additional expense; one commenter suggested allowing the cost of audits to be financed as part of the PowerSaver loan. For these reasons, a required audit or rating, as recommended, may disadvantage certain homeowners and communities.
HUD generally agrees with these commenters that audits/ratings can enable homeowners to better understand the most cost effective energy savings improvements for their particular home. For these reasons, the November 10, 2010, notice strongly encouraged the use of audits; this notice affirms this encouragement. Furthermore, as suggested in the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD will consider the extent to which audits will be required or encouraged by lenders in lender Expressions of Interest to participate in the pilot program. In addition, this notice allows the cost of an energy audit/rating to be financed as part of the PowerSaver loan.
Several commenters addressed the property valuation requirement, which is necessary to ensure homeowners do not have total mortgage debt (including the PowerSaver loan) in excess of the current value of their home at the time of PowerSaver loan origination. One commenter recommended that HUD allow lenders to use a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Form 2055 Exterior-Only Inspection Residential Appraisal Report, on which the November 10, 2010, notice specifically solicited comment. This notice adopts this recommendation. Some commenters also recommended that Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) be allowed for use in establishing property valuation. HUD recognizes that AVMs can be an effective tool in certain markets and may be appropriate to use with respect to borrowers who have built some equity in their homes. The notice specifies that lenders may use AVMs to establish property value for certain borrowers, subject to FHA approval, on a case-by-case basis. HUD will discuss this issue further with lenders in the review of their Expression of Interest.
Some commenters raised the concern that appraisals would add inordinate cost to a PowerSaver loan and to the time to close a loan. HUD is sensitive to this concern and agrees that the cost and time associated with appraisals may pose a challenge to the marketability of PowerSaver loans. The availability of various options for determining property valuation, as noted above, addresses this concern. A sound basis for determining property value is essential for determining a borrower's combined-loan-to-value ratio and for establishing PowerSaver loans as viable for capital markets investment and liquidity, which is a stated goal of the pilot program. As noted above, lenders may propose to use incentive grant funds to offset costs associated with appraisals and other approved methods of property valuation. In addition, this notice specifies that appraisal costs may be financed as part of the PowerSaver loan.
Some commenters recommended that an energy audit suffice for establishing the property value. HUD declines to makes this change, as energy audits are not currently recognized by the housing finance industry as a viable tool for determining home value. HUD is interested in working with stakeholders and exploring the extent to which energy audits may be able to provide reliable information to inform determinations of home value and borrower ability to afford and repay mortgage loans. Finally, one commenter suggested that an audit should eliminate an appraisal requirement for an unsecured PowerSaver loan. The notice clarifies that, as under the Title I Property Improvement program, PowerSaver loans of less than $7,500 are
Some commenters recommended modest tightening or relaxing of the minimum credit score and maximum total debt-to-income for borrowers receiving PowerSaver loans. HUD declines to make any changes to these features of the program at this time. Homeowners' response and loan performance, among other factors, during the pilot program may warrant adjustments to credit requirements in the future.
Several commenters suggested that HUD allow “dealer loans,” as defined by the FHA Title I Property Improvement Home Loan program, be allowed under the PowerSaver pilot program. The Title I Property Improvement Home Loan program regulations at § 201.2 define a “dealer loan” as “a loan where a dealer, having a direct or indirect financial interest in the transaction between the borrower and the lender, assists the borrower in preparing the credit application or otherwise assists the borrower in obtaining the loan from the lender.” HUD agrees with these commenters that responsible home improvement contractors can be effective in educating homeowners about home energy loan financing options, which is typically important to maintaining homeowner interest in a financing option.
While HUD declines to make this change, home improvement contractors may provide information to homeowners as to how they may obtain a PowerSaver loan, including the identity of lenders who are participating in the program.
Several commenters made recommendations regarding HUD's planned evaluation of the PowerSaver pilot program. Some suggested that HUD require homeowners to sign a disclosure in connection with a PowerSaver loan to allow access to pre- and post-installation utility bill information. HUD recognizes the importance of accessing utility bill information and is exploring options for accessing it in a manner that ensures homeowner privacy. This notice does not require homeowners to provide utility bill information; HUD will discuss this issue individually with participating lenders in the review of lender Expressions of Interest.
One commenter suggested that HUD participate in efforts by DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and industry groups to develop metrics and standards for data collection and program evaluation and to coordinate to the extent feasible with DOE's Home Energy Score Pilot Program. HUD appreciates and agrees with this recommendation and has already been in discussions along these lines with DOE and others.
Several commenters recommended increasing the maximum loan amounts overall or with respect to unsecured loans. HUD declines to make changes to the loan limits. HUD believes that the $25,000 loan limit is sufficient to cover all or most of the cost of a comprehensive retrofit or the cost of a renewable energy system—and in the latter case a variety of subsidies and incentives are available to fund costs that the loan cannot. With respect to unsecured loans, the primary purpose of the PowerSaver pilot program is to establish the viability of a mainstream mortgage product for home energy improvement loans; unsecured loan products and credit card options of various types are already available in the market. Because the current Title I Property Improvement Home Loan program does not require loans under $7,500 to be secured, primarily because it would add infeasible cost to such small loans, HUD is retaining that feature, with no change, and no additional incentives to originate (as one commenter recommended) in the PowerSaver pilot program.
Some commenters broadly suggested that HUD require contractors who perform home energy improvements funded by PowerSaver loans to be certified on some basis or that broader “quality assurance” procedures be required. HUD is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the commenters and generally agrees that high quality assurance procedures can enhance the prospects that a home improvement job will be performed properly and professionally. HUD understands that a number of communities implementing comprehensive home energy improvement programs are imposing or incentivizing such requirements.
HUD will ask lenders that submit Expressions of Interest in participating in the program to describe the extent to which contractor certification and overall quality assurance is reflected in programs serving the lender's proposed target market(s) and will evaluate Expressions of Interest in part on this basis. In addition, HUD will encourage lenders to adopt sound practices in this area. Such practices include:
(1) Verification that contractors have demonstrated business experience as home improvement contractors;
(2) Documentation on file of basic information such as trade name, places of business, type of ownership, type of business, and names and employment histories of the owners and staff;
(3) Provision of current financial statement prepared by someone who is independent of the contractor and is qualified by education and experience to prepare such statements, and a commercial credit report on the contractor;
(4) Procedures for supervising and monitoring contractors' activities with respect to loans insured under the Pilot Program; and
(5) Evidence of homeowner satisfaction with work performed by the contractor under the Pilot Program.
HUD declines to make these or other quality assurance requirements mandatory, however. HUD believes that such a requirement would add unnecessary administrative burden on lenders in the Pilot Program. In addition, HUD expects that it will be able to work closely with lenders, as well as local communities, to monitor and help ensure quality assurance under the Pilot Program given that only a limited number of lenders will participate. In addition, HUD may revisit the issue of quality assurance during its evaluation of the pilot program to determine whether changes should be made to the Pilot Program along the lines suggested by the commenters.
Several commenters encouraged HUD to implement a “streamlined application procedure” for PowerSaver loans. HUD recognizes the importance of ensuring homeowners can close on PowerSaver loans in a timely manner. HUD will utilize the Title I Property Improvement Home Loan program platform and system for the PowerSaver pilot program. This system, while different from the system used for FHA Title II loan products, should enable lenders to make a timely turnaround of loan applications. In addition, HUD will consider lenders' expected loan procedures and expected turnaround time in evaluating their Expressions of Interest to participate in the pilot program.
One commenter suggested that HUD allow PowerSaver loans to be in third lien position in cases where the borrower has a home mortgage loan in first position, a home equity loan in second position, and sufficient home equity to take on a PowerSaver loan
The Retrofit Pilot Program is authorized by the Energy Innovation Fund of the 2010 Appropriations Act, which directs HUD to conduct an Energy Efficient Mortgage Innovation pilot program targeted to the single family housing market (Pub. L. 111–117, at 123 Stat. 3089). The Pilot Program is based on the requirements of Title I, section 2 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1703). Under section 2(a) of the National Housing Act, HUD is authorized to provide loan insurance in order to help homeowners finance alterations, repairs, and improvements in connection with existing structures or manufactured homes. HUD's implementing regulations are codified at 24 CFR part 201.
1.
2.
DOE's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) program is authorized under Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), signed into law on December 19, 2007. Through formula and competitive grants administered by DOE, this program empowers local communities to make strategic investments to meet the Nation's long-term goals for energy independence and leadership on climate change.
With funding for the EECBG program provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOE initiated the Retrofit Ramp-up Program, now known as the Better Buildings program, a demonstration program directed to stimulating activities and investments that can: (1) Deliver verified energy savings from a variety of projects in the local jurisdiction of the applicant, with a particular emphasis on efficiency improvements in residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings; (2) achieve broader market participation and greater efficiency savings from building retrofits; (3) highly leverage grant funding in order to significantly enhance the resources available for supporting the program; (4) sustain themselves beyond the grant monies and the grant period by designing a viable strategy for program sustainability; (5) serve as pilot building-retrofit programs that demonstrate the benefits of gaining economy of scale; and (6) serve as examples of comprehensive community-scale energy-efficiency approaches that could be replicated in other communities across the country.
Under the Better Buildings Program, approximately $485 million was allocated by DOE through competitive grants to initiatives in the following locations: Austin, TX; Berlin, Cambridge, Chestertown, Cumberland, Denton, Easton, Elkton, Frostburg, Oakland, Princess Anne, Dundalk, Westminster, Havre de Grace, Salisbury, Takoma Park, and University Park, MD; Fayette County, PA; Bedford, NY; Berlin, Nashua, and Plymouth, NH; Boulder County, City and County of Denver, Garfield County, and Eagle County, CO; Camden, NJ; Chicago region, IL; Cincinnati, Ohio, and northeast Kentucky; a consortium of 14 Connecticut Towns: Bethany, Cheshire, East Haddam, East Hampton, Glastonbury, Lebanon, Mansfield, Portland, Ridgefield, Weston, Westport, Wethersfield, Wilton, and Windom; Detroit, Grand Rapids, and southeast MI; Greensboro, NC; Indianapolis and Lafayette, IN; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Barbara County, CA; Lowell, MA; Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, WI; Maine statewide; Missouri statewide; Nashville, TN; New York statewide; Omaha and Lincoln, NE; Oregon statewide; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Riley County, KS; San Antonio, TX; Seattle, and Bainbridge Island, WA; select Southeastern cities: Atlanta, GA; Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Charlotte, NC; Charleston SC; Charlottesville, VA; Decatur, GA; Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach, VA; Huntsville, AL; Jacksonville, FL; New Orleans, LA; Toledo, OH; and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, in December 2010, DOE announced that the following State Energy Programs were integrated into BetterBuildings: Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Washington, and Virginia.
The locations listed above are all eligible markets for lenders to serve in the Pilot. In addition, this notice provides that areas where the Home Performance with Energy Star program is available are automatically eligible locations for lenders to serve under the pilot program. Those areas are listed here:
FHA will consider lenders' interest in other communities, subject to an assessment of such communities' infrastructure for implementing residential retrofit programs. As noted in the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD strongly encourages lenders to serve such markets, provided lenders can demonstrate, through their Expressions of Interest in participating, that such locations are viable markets for the deployment of PowerSaver-insured loans. On December 16, 2010, HUD posted additional guidance on its Web site to assist lenders in this area:
HUD considered targeting the pilot to a smaller number of markets, which may have increased the likelihood of lender competition within some markets, potentially benefitting consumers. HUD determined that such an approach could limit the number and diversity of lenders that could participate in the program overall, however. HUD determined it was important for the Pilot to be open to a
Lender participation in the Retrofit Pilot Program is voluntary. Of the pool of interested lenders that meet the criteria described in Section II of the November 10, 2010, notice and reiterated below, HUD intends to select a limited number of lenders to participate in the Retrofit Pilot Program. HUD is currently undertaking efforts to identify FHA-approved lenders that may be suitable candidates for participation in the Retrofit Pilot Program. HUD reserves the right to terminate a lender's participation in the Retrofit Pilot Program for unacceptable performance. Examples of unacceptable lender performance could include violating the program's underwriting and credit criteria, failing to meet HUD reporting requirements, and high defaults among originated loans under the program. To be eligible, lenders must satisfy the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
HUD recognizes that even with federal mortgage insurance such as would be available under the Pilot Program, small loans for home energy retrofits may have relatively high transaction costs for lenders, discouraging some from offering such loans and forcing others that do offer them to increase costs to borrowers. HUD will utilize the appropriated funds provided under the 2010 Appropriations Act to provide lender incentive payments to support activities that lower costs to borrowers. Eligible uses of such payments are: (1) Supporting costs associated with creating or enhancing staffing and/or systems necessary to deliver or report on PowerSaver insured loans; (2) Funding costs of loan marketing, origination, or underwriting; (3) Offsetting costs associated with appraisals and other approved methods of property valuation; and (4) For lenders that will also service their own loans, reducing servicing costs.
HUD will also consider other proposed uses of such funds. Any use of funds must show, to HUD's satisfaction, bona fide benefit to borrowers. The amount of payment to each lender and the eligible uses of funds by each lender will be determined by HUD based on the lender's Expression of Interest. A significant factor in determining payment amounts to each lender will be the number of loans the lender anticipates making during the 2-year period of the Pilot Program. Lenders will be required to report to HUD on their use of incentive payment funds. HUD anticipates that the amount of grant funds will not exceed $5 million per lender.
In addition, this notice clarifies that HUD grant funds may not be used to directly subsidize or otherwise “write down” the interest rate on PowerSaver loans. Non-Federal grant funds may be used for this purpose.
Grant funds may be available to lenders who request them, but are not required for participation. Lenders who do not seek funds may still participate in the Pilot Program.
As noted above, lenders interested in potentially participating in the Retrofit Pilot Program were required to submit an Expression of Interest using the template in Appendix A and by following the instructions provided in the November 10, 2010, notice.
In evaluating Expressions of Interest and selecting lenders to participate, HUD will first review each Expression of Interest to verify that the lender is eligible to participate in the program. HUD will then evaluate the Expressions of Interest from all eligible lenders primarily by weighing the following factors in the Expression of Interest: (1) The lender's anticipated loan volume and target markets; (2) the lender's business model for participating in the pilot; (3) the lender's capacity (experience and/or potential) to work in public-private partnerships; and (4) the extent to which the lender intends to deliver the most favorable loan product to consumers. HUD anticipates that these primary weighting factors will have generally equal weighting significance. In addition, HUD may consider the following factors in selecting lenders to participate: (1) Diversity of lender type and target market; and (2) impact on low-income households and communities.
With the exceptions discussed below, the Retrofit Pilot Program will be governed by the Title I program regulations at 24 CFR part 201. This notice does not make any changes to the current Title I Property Improvement Program. The differences specified in this notice are only applicable to lenders selected to participate in the Pilot Program.
Lenders selected to participate in the Retrofit Pilot Program must enter into a Retrofit Pilot Program Agreement by which they commit to adhere to the Title I program regulations, except as
In summary, the changes described below, in combination with the appropriated funds, have the effect of creating an innovative pilot program that accords with Congress' direction in the Act. These changes fall into the following categories: (1) Changes designed to enhance underwriting of program loans; (2) changes related to FHA administration of the program, specifically in the areas of loan servicing, claim procedures, and reporting; (3) changes to target the pilot program specifically for its purpose of improving home energy performance; and (4) changes to provide additional benefits to borrowers. Finally, as noted, FHA will augment these changes with grant funds for lenders, using funding appropriated under the 2010 Appropriations Act. In summary, these changes adjust the current flexible framework for the Title I program to enable it to encourage and directly support home improvements that improve energy performance, while reducing barriers to making financing under the program more widely available and more affordable.
1.
a.
Loans used to finance the property improvements for manufactured homes and multifamily properties
2.
3.
The interest shall be calculated on a traditional mortgage interest basis.
4.
a.
(i) Fee simple title of the property; or
(ii) A properly recorded land installment contract.
Unlike the Title I program, lessees of the property will not be eligible to participate in the Pilot Program. The limitation of eligibility to owner-occupied properties is designed to reduce the variables in the Pilot Program for purposes of evaluation, as well as to help ensure compliance with the minimum property loan-to-value ratios described in section V.F.5. below.
b.
A list of eligible measures is attached as an appendix to this notice. Homeowners may use up to 25 percent of the PowerSaver loan proceeds to fund, with the following exceptions, any property improvement that is identified in Title I Letter 470 as an eligible improvement under the Title I program. The following property improvements, although listed in Title I Letter 470 as eligible improvements under the Title I program, are not eligible for funding with PowerSaver loan proceeds:
A copy of Title I Letter 470 may be downloaded at:
5.
6.
The borrower's total debt-to-income ratio cannot exceed 45 percent, as under the Title I program. HUD recognizes that requiring a minimum credit score for participation in the pilot program will mean that some homeowners cannot participate. However, given that this is a pilot program, HUD has determined to limit the Retrofit Pilot Program to borrowers with these credit scores in order to make an initial assessment of the interaction of credit ratings and repayment in connection with home energy retrofit loans.
7.
8.
9.
Dealer loans will not be permitted in the Retrofit Pilot Program. The reason for this limitation is that dealer loans have been disproportionately correlated with poor loan performance under Title I and other home improvement loan programs in the past. While HUD recognizes that there are many responsible dealers who can and would provide financing through dealer loans in a responsible manner, it is limiting the Retrofit Pilot Program to “direct loans.” “Direct loans” is defined under the Title I program (at 24 CFR 201.2) as “a loan for which a borrower makes application directly to a lender without any assistance from a dealer.” HUD believes that home improvement contractors and others whose activity may be described under the definition of “dealer” for the Title I program will play an important role in ensuring the pilot's success by performing the actual work related to the retrofits.
However, home improvement contractors may provide information to homeowners as to how they may obtain a PowerSaver loan, including the identity of lenders who are participating in the program.
10.
In addition, as noted, lenders that also service loans they originate under the pilot program may utilize HUD incentive payments under the program to reduce servicing costs that deliver bona fide benefits to borrowers.
11.
Under the Pilot Program, the holder of the note will be accountable to HUD for origination/underwriting errors, and the servicer will be accountable to HUD for servicing errors, as long as the servicer is a HUD-approved lender. To effectuate this, the insured lender must enter into an agreement with its servicer, under which the servicer agrees to be liable to HUD for such errors, and which identifies HUD as a third-party beneficiary of such agreement.
As stated in the November 10, 2010, notice, HUD's goals for the Pilot Program are: (1) To facilitate the testing and scaling of a mainstream mortgage product for home energy retrofit loans that includes liquidity options for lenders, resulting in more affordable and widely available loans than are currently available for home energy retrofits; and (2) to establish a robust set of data on home energy efficiency improvements and their impact—on energy savings, borrower income, property value, and other metrics—for the purpose of driving development and expansion of mainstream mortgage products to support home energy retrofits.
HUD's evaluation of PowerSaver will be focused on the extent to which the pilot program achieves those goals. To address the first goal, HUD, through its internal staff and systems, will closely assess lender performance and experience in marketing, originating, servicing and selling PowerSaver loans. As a pilot program in which a small number of lenders will participate, PowerSaver will afford HUD an unusual ability to learn from lenders as they deploy PowerSaver loans. As the PowerSaver program launches and lenders establish marketing plans, loan interest rates, and strategies for holding and/or selling loans, HUD will be in position to assess market impacts as they develop. HUD, working with its lender partners in the pilot program, will get a sense of the factors that contribute to (or impede) consumer demand for home energy efficiency improvement financing. In addition, as noted, lenders will be reporting regularly to HUD on loan performance and the uses of loan proceeds for various improvements. Thus, HUD will
As a pilot program, one of the principal purposes of the Pilot is to generate data on key questions that can help make the case for additional mainstream mortgage products to support home energy retrofits, including first mortgage options. HUD is therefore committed to a robust evaluation program in connection with the Pilot. (The evaluation will also enable HUD to assess the success of possible modifications to the existing Title I program before initiating, through rulemaking, any changes to the Title I regulations.)
To address the second goal, HUD will focus on three overarching questions: (1) Did homes reduce their energy consumption after retrofits were completed? (2) Did homeowners realize lower energy bills as a result of the retrofits? and (3) Were home values affected as a result of the retrofits? Data from the PowerSaver Pilot Program suggesting answers to these questions will help fill a major void and start to establish a basis for analyzing other financing.
This component of the evaluation will be conducted by a third party with which HUD will contract. That entity will be under contract as the pilot program launches and lenders begin to make loans. HUD anticipates that a critical component of this part of the evaluation will be the third party's ability to access pre- and post-retrofit utility data from at least a sample of PowerSaver homeowners. HUD is aware of effective practices for third parties to access this information, on a confidential basis, and will encourage the evaluation contractor to utilize such practices, including those developed and implemented by DOE.
HUD acknowledges that the issues identified can be challenging impacts to evaluate, for reasons ranging from “rebound effects” to consumer concerns about access to utility billing data. HUD believes that it must attempt to do so, however, and believes that additional, useful information at a meaningful scale can be obtained through the PowerSaver program. HUD believes that continued progress on mainstream mortgage financing options for home energy retrofits requires attention to these issues.
HUD recognizes that an evaluation of PowerSaver could also consider other important questions. HUD will explore, internally and with its contractor, the feasibility of adding to the core evaluation scope, potentially including: (1) Lender costs for originating and servicing; (2) impact of interest rates on consumer participation; (3) relative effectiveness of nonfinancial programmatic elements (consumer education, product marketing, auditing tools, and workforce quality assurance); and (4) the extent to which specific home energy improvements are chosen and the results from specific measures.
The results of the evaluation program will heavily inform HUD's determination of whether to make the PowerSaver pilot program a permanent FHA program, subject to any desired changes and pursuant to any appropriate rulemaking process that HUD may determine is necessary. A successful pilot program, and a sound basis for making PowerSaver a permanent program would be reflected in an evaluation that HUD believes demonstrates that: (1) Lenders demonstrate that there is a market for PowerSaver loans in their communities that they can serve on a viable continuing basis, facilitated to the extent necessary by an ability to sell or securitize PowerSaver loans; (2) the best available data suggests that PowerSaver loans are resulting in more home energy retrofits (and related jobs and economic benefits), lower energy use, and lower energy bills; and (3) FHA systems and staff indicate that FHA can continue and potentially expand the program in a safe and sound manner.
The information collection requirements in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) (PRA) and assigned OMB Control Number 2502–0596. In accordance with the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB reviewed this notice rule under Executive Order 12866 (entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review”). As was the case with the November 10, 2010, notice, this notice has been determined to be an “economically significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of the Order. The revised impact analysis for this notice is available at
The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10276 Washington, DC 20410–0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulations Division at 202–402–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment was prepared in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Individual mortgage insurance actions taken under the pilot program are categorically excluded under HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 50.19(b)(17) and not subject to the federal laws and authorities cited in 24 CFR 50.4, other than 24 CFR 50.4(b)(1) and (c)(1), and 24 CFR 51.303(a)(3). The FONSI is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Notice.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410–0500, telephone 202–708–1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession.
This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver.
Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010) before the next report is published (the first quarter of calendar year 2011), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the fourth quarter in the next report.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
In accordance with 24 CFR part 58 (§§ 58.11(c) and (d) and 58.77(d)(1)), HUD agreed to assist the Tribe by re-assuming environmental responsibilities for the project.
•
•
•
•
(1) The use of the housing owned by SDHC is necessary to provide an adequate supply of appropriate housing options for HPRP participants; (2) SDHC disclosed the conflict of interest; (3) SDHC's attorney reviewed the conflict of interest and determined that the use of the housing owned by the subgrantee would not violate State or local law; (4) HPRP participants would not be required or steered to live in SDHC's housing in order to receive financial or other assistance under HPRP; (5) the use of the housing owned by SDHC would not result in any personal or financial gain for any employee of the grantee, subgrantee, or the parent, subsidiary, or affiliated organization of the subgrantee; and (6) the housing owned by SDHC is not subsidized through another federal, state, or local housing program.
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of feedback.
We, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), announce the
We must receive any written comments on or before April 22, 2011.
We have posted our draft report at
T. Schertz, 703–648–6864.
The draft report was prepared in response to Section 9506 of Public Law 111–11 by an interagency team of water data program managers and scientists. The interagency team cooperated with the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ), an interagency subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Environment Natural Resources, and Sustainability (CENRS) and the Federal Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force and its Water Resources Workgroup. The interagency team also collaborated with a range of interested parties including the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). The interagency team consisted of representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Global Change Program, and Council on Environmental Quality.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 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. You can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Indian Energy & Economic Development (IEED) is seeking comments on renewal of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for the Application for Job Placement and Training Services. The information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076–0062, which expires on March 31, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395–5806 or you may send an e-mail to:
Francis Dunne, Division of Workforce Development at (202) 219–5270.
The IEED is seeking renewal of the approval for the information collection conducted under 25 CFR part 26 to administer the job placement and training program, which provides vocational/technical training, related counseling, guidance, job placement services, and limited financial assistance to Indian individuals who are not less than 18 years old and who reside within the Department of the Interior (DOI) approved service areas. This information collection includes a form: BIA–8205, Application for Job Placement and/or Training Assistance. Approval for this collection expires March 31, 2011.
This renewal will adjust the responses and burden hours that are currently approved to correct for a database entry error that occurred in the last submission that quadrupled the number of responses and burden hours. The 60-day notice and 30-day notice for the current approval reflected the current number of responses and burden hours, as does this notice. The database will be corrected to reflect these figures through a change due to adjustment in agency estimate.
The IEED requests that you send your comments on this collection to the location listed in the
Please note that an agency may not sponsor or conduct, an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. This information collection expires March 31, 2011.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Submission to the Office of Management and Budget.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), U.S. Department of the Interior, is submitting a request for renewal of the information collection for Home-living Programs and School Closure and Consolidation, currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076–0164, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Submit comments on or before May 2, 2011.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395–5806 or you may send an e-mail to:
Juanita Keesing, Program Analyst, at (202) 208–3559. To see a copy of the entire collection submitted to OMB, go to
Public Law 107–110, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of January 8, 2001, requires all schools including BIE-funded boarding/residential schools to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging academic achievement standards and assessments. The NCLB Act, and implementing regulations at 25 CFR part 36, requires the BIE to implement national standards for home-living situations in all BIE-funded residential schools. The BIE must collect information from all BIE-funded residential schools in order to assess each school's progress in meeting the national standards. The BIE is seeking renewal of the approval for this information collection to ensure that minimum academic standards for the education of Indian children and criteria for dormitory situations in Bureau-operated schools and Indian-controlled contract schools are met.
The BIE requests your comments on this information collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection 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 the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A notice requesting public comment on renewal of this information collection was previously published in the
Please note that an agency may not sponsor or conduct, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number. This information collection expires March 31, 2011.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is announcing that the Advisory Board for Exceptional Children (Advisory Board) will hold its next meeting in Riverside, California. The purpose of the meeting is to meet the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) for Indian children with disabilities.
The Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, May 5, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Friday, May 6, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
The meeting will be held at the Sherman Indian High School, 9010 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 92503; telephone number (951) 276–6325.
Sue Bement, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Indian Education, Albuquerque Service Center, Division of Performance and Accountability, 1011 Indian School Road, NW., Suite 332, Albuquerque, NM 87104; telephone number (505) 563–5274.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the BIE is announcing that the Advisory Board will hold its next meeting in Riverside, California. The Advisory Board was established under the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400
The following items will be on the agenda:
• Report from Gloria Yepa, Supervisory Education Specialist, BIE, Division of Performance and Accountability.
• Report from BIE Director's Office.
• Report from Dr. Jeffrey Hamley, Associate Deputy Director, BIE.
• Advisory Board work on priorities.
• Native American Student Information System (NASIS) Update.
• Native Star Update—Gaye Leia King.
• Public Comment (via conference call, May 5, 2011, meeting only*).
• Panel discussion with Special Education faculty from Sherman Indian School, Riverside, California.
• BIE Advisory Board—Advice and Recommendations.
*During the May 5, 2011, meeting, time has been set aside for public comment via conference call from 11:30 a.m.–12 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. The call-in information is: Conference Number 1–888–417–0376, Passcode 1509140.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review the final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on January 24, 2011, finding no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
This investigation was instituted on February 23, 2010, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, New York (“Kodak”) on January 14, 2010, and supplemented on February 4, 2010. 75 FR 8112. The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile telephones and wireless communication devices featuring digital cameras, and components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,218 (“the '218 patent”). The complaint named as respondents Apple, Inc., of Cupertino, Calif. (“Apple”); Research in Motion, Ltd., of Ontario, Canada; and Research in Motion Corp., of Irving, Texas (collectively, “RIM”). Claim 15 is now the only claim in issue.
On January 24, 2011, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. The ALJ found that none of the accused Apple and RIM products infringe asserted claim 15 of the '218 patent. In addition, the ALJ found that claim 15 is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ found, however, that the domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to the asserted patent. With respect to remedy, the ALJ recommended that if the Commission disagrees with the finding of no violation, the Commission should issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to Apple and RIM. In addition, the ALJ recommended, in the event that a violation is found, that no bond be required during the Presidential review period.
On February 7, 2011, Kodak, Apple, RIM, and the Commission investigative attorney each filed a petition for review of the ALJ's final ID. The parties each filed a response submission on February 15, 2011.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID and the submissions of the parties, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in its entirety.
The parties should brief their positions on the issues on review with
1. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ made a ruling on obviousness with respect to prior art combinations that Kodak did not have an opportunity to address. The parties should address whether the ALJ permissibly relied on these prior art combinations and whether these combinations render claim 15 invalid for obviousness.
2. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not address the claim constructions of the presiding ALJ in Inv. No. 337–TA–663. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have considered the claim constructions in Inv. No. 337–TA–663 and what effect those constructions should have in this case.
3. Kodak has argued in its petition for review that the ALJ did not address the reexaminations at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the '218 patent. The parties should address whether the ALJ should have considered the reexaminations and what effect those reexaminations should have in this case.
4. Please explain whether U.S. Patent No. 5,493,335 is prior art, and if so, on what statutory basis.
5. What is the meaning of “color pixel value” in part (b) of claim 15? Is it “the value of a color pixel”? In your answer, address the patent's discussion of each red, green, or blue element of a display being a “pixel” (column 8 lines 17–28).
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in a respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background,
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the United States Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.42–46 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
April 12, 2011 at 11 a.m.
Room 110, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Telephone: (202) 205–2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731–TA–1084–1087 (Review) (Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Finland, Mexico, Netherlands, and Sweden). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 3, 2011.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier Notification of this meeting was not possible.
By order of the Commission:
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.
The meeting will be held on April 29, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Mercer, 4400 Comerica Bank Tower, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 202–622–8225.
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Mercer, 4400 Comerica Bank Tower, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, TX, on April 29, 2011, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).
A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.
By Notice dated October 8, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to import Remifentanil for use in dosage form manufacturing.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Hospira Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Hospira Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated October 19, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to import narcotic raw materials for manufacturing and further distribution to its customers. The company is registered with DEA as a manufacturer of several controlled substances that are manufactured from raw opium, poppy straw, and concentrate of poppy straw.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Cody Laboratories, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Cody Laboratories, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 19, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated November 1, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the form of three separate analogues of Cocaine, to validate production and quality control systems, for a reference standard, and for producing material for a future investigational new drug (IND) submission.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of GE Healthcare to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated GE Healthcare to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated August 2, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Austin Pharma LLC. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Austin Pharma LLC. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
By Notice dated August 13, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB)
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
By Notice dated November 1, 2010, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances to make reference standards which will be distributed to their customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cerilliant Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cerilliant Corporation to
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor announces the availability of approximately $5.5 million authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 to support applicants in providing intensive mentoring services to low-income young parents (both mothers and fathers, and expectant parents ages 16 to 24) participating in workforce development programs. Activities under this SGA are authorized under Section 171(b) of the Workforce Investment Act, which allows for demonstration and pilot projects for the purpose of developing and implementing techniques and approaches, and demonstrating the effectiveness of specialized methods, in addressing employment and training needs.
The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments, in connection with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 is described in further detail on ETA's Web site at
The closing date for receipt of applications is April 29, 2011.
Latifa Jeter, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210;
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of March, 2011.
The National Science Board's Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEH), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows:
April 7, 2011, 10:30 a.m.–12 p.m. EST.
Discussion of the Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEH) STEM education prospective “action items” (to be developed at the teleconference) and discussion of the May 10–11, 2011 CEH meeting agenda.
Open.
This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. A room will be available for the public to listen-in to this meeting held by teleconference at Stafford Place I, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. All visitors must contact the Board Office [call 703–292–7000 or send an e-mail message to
Please refer to the National Science Board Web site
Pursuant to its authority under section 5051 of Public Law 100–203, Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board will hold a public meeting in Amherst, New York, on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, to discuss the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP). Currently planned are presentations on the WVDP by representatives of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management. Other issues expected to be discussed include previous reprocessing and vitrification activities at the WVDP; long-term onsite storage of vitrified high-level radioactive waste (HLW); determination of waste classification of the melter from the vitrification facility; and the final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship at the WVDP. Also planned are presentations and a panel discussion on the 2008–9 study on Quantitative Risk Assessment of the State Licensed Radioactive Waste Disposal Area.
The meeting will be held at the Buffalo Marriott Niagara; 1340 Millersport Highway; Amherst, New York 14221; (tel) 716–689–6900; (fax) 716–689–0483. A block of rooms has been reserved at the hotel for meeting attendees. To ensure receiving the meeting rate, room reservations must be made by April 8, 2011.
Reservations can be made online at
A detailed agenda will be available on the Board's Web site at
The meeting will be open to the public, and opportunities for public comment will be provided. Those wanting to speak are encouraged to sign the “Public Comment Register” at the check-in table. It may be necessary to set a time limit on individual remarks, but written comments of any length may be submitted for the record.
Transcripts of the meeting will be available on the Board's Web site, by e-mail, on computer disk, and on library-loan in paper form from Davonya Barnes of the Board's staff after May 18, 2011.
The Board was established as an independent federal agency to provide ongoing objective expert advice to Congress and the Secretary of Energy on technical issues and to review the technical validity of DOE activities related to implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Board members are experts in their fields and are appointed to the Board by the President from a list of candidates submitted by the National Academy of Sciences. The Board is required to report to Congress and the Secretary no fewer than two times each year. Board reports, correspondence, congressional testimony, and meeting transcripts and materials are posted on the Board's Web site.
The Board's visit to West Valley will complete a series of visits to federal facilities where government-owned HLW and spent nuclear fuel are managed and stored. As part of the Board's ongoing technical evaluation of DOE activities, the Board intends to develop a report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy containing Board findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on technical information gathered from visits to the Hanford site in Washington, Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the West Valley site in New York.
For information on the meeting agenda, contact Karyn Severson. For information on lodging or logistics, contact Linda Coultry. They can be reached at 2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1300; Arlington, VA 22201–3367; (tel) 703–235–4473; (fax) 703–235–4495.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of March 2011. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
Diane L. Titus at (202) 551–6810, SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–4041.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, 2011 will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551–5400.
On January 27, 2011, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (“C2” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Eliminate its office of the Vice Chairman of the Board (“Vice Chairman”); (2) provide that the Board of Directors may establish an Advisory Board; and (3) eliminate the C2 Audit Committee.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws to eliminate the office of the Vice Chairman.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Section 6.1 of the Bylaws that would allow the Board of Directors to establish an Advisory Board which would advise the Office of the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders. According to the Exchange, this would be beneficial because it would provide another vehicle by which the Exchange management could receive advice and feedback from Trading Permit Holders.
The Advisory Board would be completely advisory in nature and would not be vested with any Exchange decision-making authority or other authority to act on behalf of the Exchange. Pursuant to proposed Section 6.1 of the Bylaws, the Board of Directors would have the discretion as to whether (or not) to put an Advisory Board in place. C2 has represented that the Board of Directors intends to establish an Advisory Board.
C2 proposes to amend its Bylaws to eliminate its Audit Committee because its functions are duplicative of the functions performed by the Audit Committee of its parent company, CBOE Holdings, Inc. (“CBOE Holdings”).
The CBOE Holdings Audit Committee has broad authority to assist the CBOE Holdings Board of Directors in discharging its responsibilities relating to, among other things: (1) The qualifications, engagement, and oversight of CBOE Holdings' independent auditor; (2) CBOE Holdings' financial statements and disclosure matters; (3) CBOE Holdings' internal audit function and internal controls; and (4) CBOE Holdings' oversight and risk management, including compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. CBOE Holdings' financial statements are prepared on a consolidated basis that includes the financial results of CBOE Holdings' subsidiaries, including C2. Therefore, according to the Exchange, the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee's purview necessarily includes C2 and the responsibilities of the C2 Audit Committee are fully duplicated by the responsibilities of the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee.
Although the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee would continue to have overall responsibility with respect to the internal audit function, the C2 Board of Directors would maintain its own independent oversight over the internal audit function with respect to C2 regulatory functions through the C2 Regulatory Oversight Committee. Specifically, upon elimination of the C2 Audit Committee, the Regulatory Oversight Committee would have the authority to review the internal audit plan relating to C2's regulatory
After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed elimination of C2's Office of the Vice Chairman of the Board is consistent with the Act. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the role previously performed by the Vice Chairman of the Board can effectively be performed by C2 management and the new Advisory Board. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to eliminate this position to make its governance structure more streamlined and efficient. With respect to member input in the affairs of the Exchange, the Commission notes that the Exchange Bylaws will continue to require that at least 30% of the directors on the C2 Board of Directors be Industry Directors and that at least 20% of C2's directors be Representative Directors.
In addition, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to authorize an Advisory Board to advise the Office of the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders is consistent with the Act. With respect to composition, the Nominating and Governance Committee will recommend members of the Advisory Board for approval by the Board of Directors.
Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed elimination of C2's Audit Committee is consistent with the Act. The Commission previously approved a structure in which certain committees of the board of directors of NYSE Euronext, including its audit committee, were authorized to perform functions for various subsidiaries, including the New York Stock Exchange, LLC.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 27, 2011, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Eliminate the CBOE Office of the Vice Chairman of the Board (“Vice Chairman”); (2) eliminate the CBOE Trading Advisory Committee and provide that the Board of Directors may establish an Advisory Board instead; (3) eliminate the CBOE Audit Committee; and (4) conform the composition requirements for the CBOE Board of Directors and Executive Committee to the composition requirements of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of its affiliate C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (“C2”).
The Exchange proposes to amend its Bylaws to eliminate the office of the Vice Chairman.
Section 4.7 of the CBOE Bylaws currently provides for a Trading Advisory Committee to advise CBOE's Office of the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders. Section 4.7 allows the Board of Directors to set the number of members of the Trading Advisory Committee, requires that the majority of the members of the Committee be involved in trading either directly or indirectly through their firms, states that the Chairman of the Committee is the Vice Chairman of the Board, and the Vice Chairman appoints the other members of the Committee with the approval of the Board.
In place of a Trading Advisory Committee, the Exchange proposes that the Board of Directors may establish an Advisory Board which would advise the Office of the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders. The Board of Directors would determine the number of members of the Advisory Board, the Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee would serve as the Chairman of an Advisory Board, and the CBOE Nominating and Governance Committee would recommend the members of any Advisory Board for approval by the Board of Directors.
The Advisory Board would be completely advisory in nature and would not be vested with any Exchange decision-making authority or other authority to act on behalf of the Exchange. Pursuant to proposed Section 6.1 of the Bylaws, the Board of Directors would have the discretion as to whether (or not) to put an Advisory Board in place. CBOE has represented that the Board of Directors intends to establish an Advisory Board.
CBOE proposes to amend its Bylaws to eliminate its Audit Committee because its functions are duplicative of the functions performed by the Audit Committee of its parent company, CBOE Holdings, Inc. (“CBOE Holdings”).
The CBOE Holdings Audit Committee has broad authority to assist the CBOE Holdings Board of Directors in discharging its responsibilities relating to, among other things: (1) The qualifications, engagement, and oversight of CBOE Holdings' independent auditor; (2) CBOE Holdings' financial statements and disclosure matters; (3) CBOE Holdings' internal audit function and internal controls; and (4) CBOE Holdings' oversight and risk management, including compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. CBOE Holdings' financial statements are prepared on a consolidated basis that includes the financial results of CBOE Holdings' subsidiaries, including CBOE. Therefore, according to the Exchange, the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee's purview necessarily includes CBOE and the responsibilities of the CBOE Audit Committee are fully duplicated by the responsibilities of the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee.
Although the CBOE Holdings Audit Committee would continue to have overall responsibility with respect to the internal audit function, the CBOE Board of Directors would maintain its own independent oversight over the internal audit function with respect to CBOE regulatory functions through the CBOE Regulatory Oversight Committee. Specifically, upon elimination of the CBOE Audit Committee, the Regulatory Oversight Committee would have the authority to review the internal audit plan relating to CBOE's regulatory functions and to request at any time that CBOE's internal auditor conduct an audit relating to those functions.
CBOE proposes to amend its Bylaws to conform the composition requirements of its Board of Directors and Executive Committee to the composition requirements of C2 Board of Directors and Executive Committee. Currently, CBOE's Bylaws require that the number of Non-Industry Directors on the CBOE Board of Directors may not be less than a majority of the members of the Board. Similarly, the Bylaws require that the majority of the directors serving on the CBOE Executive Committee must be Non-Industry Directors. Consistent with Sections 3.1 and 4.2 of the C2 Bylaws, CBOE proposes to change these provisions to provide that in no event shall the number of Non-Industry Directors on the CBOE Board or CBOE Executive Committee constitute less than the number of Industry Directors on the Board or Executive Committee, respectively (excluding the Chief Executive Officer from the calculation of Industry Directors for such purposes).
Under CBOE's proposal, the CBOE Bylaws would require that the Executive Committee include the Chairman of the Board, the Chief Execute Officer (if a Director), the Lead Director (if any), at least one Representative Director, and such other number of directors that the Board deems appropriate, provided that in no event would the number of Non-Industry Directors be less than the number of Industry Directors serving on the Executive Committee.
CBOE believes that having the same composition requirements for CBOE Holdings' two affiliated exchange subsidiaries will promote consistency and efficiency. CBOE and C2 currently have the same individuals serving on the CBOE and C2 Boards and the CBOE and C2 Executive Committees.
After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed elimination of CBOE's Office of the Vice Chairman of the Board is consistent with the Act. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the role previously performed by the Vice Chairman of the Board can effectively be performed by CBOE management and the new Advisory Board. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to eliminate this position to make its governance structure more streamlined and efficient. With respect to member input in the affairs of the Exchange, the Commission notes that the Exchange Bylaws will continue to require that at least 30% of the directors on the CBOE Board of Directors be Industry Directors and that at least 20% of CBOE's directors be Representative Directors.
In addition, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to authorize an Advisory Board to advise the Office of the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders is consistent with the Act. With respect to composition, the Nominating and Governance Committee will recommend members of the Advisory Board for approval by the Board of Directors.
Further, the Commission finds that the proposed elimination of CBOE's audit committee is consistent with the Act. The Commission previously approved a structure in which certain committees of the board of directors of NYSE Euronext, including its audit committee, were authorized to perform functions for various subsidiaries, including the New York Stock Exchange, LLC.
Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed changes to the compositional requirements for the CBOE Board of Directors and Executive Committee are consistent with the Act. The Commission notes these proposed changes are designed to align CBOE's compositional requirements with those of its affiliated exchange, which were previously approved by the Commission.
Though, as revised, the Executive Committee would not have 20% of its members that are elected by Permit Holders (as the Board is required to have), CBOE has represented that the role of its Executive Committee does not involve it routinely acting in place of the Board. Rather, CBOE represented that its Executive Committee generally does not make a decision unless there is a need for a CBOE Board-level decision between CBOE Board meetings due to the time sensitivity of the matter.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, e-mail, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 31, 2011. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410–965–8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
II. SSA submitted the information collections listed below to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them within 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 2, 2011. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410–965–8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
1.
2.
3.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes a new collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, e-mail, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer to the following addresses or fax numbers.
SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for Emergency Clearance. SSA is requesting Emergency Clearance from OMB no later than April 5, 2011. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410–965–8783 or by writing to the above e-mail address.
A recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling allows doctors who worked as medical residents from 1993 through 2005 to consider their residencies to be student training, not employment. Accordingly, these doctors may request a FICA refund from IRS for those years. However, if they choose this option, SSA will remove their earnings for those years from their earnings records, ultimately reducing their Social Security benefits.
SSA will conduct outreach with those medical residents (or their survivors, next of kin, representative payees,
The respondents for this collection are beneficiaries who served as medical residents from 1993 through 2005 and who filed a request with IRS for a FICA refund for those years. The collection is voluntary; if SSA does not receive a response, IRS will assume the original request for a FICA refund stands.
Because IRS is holding the FICA refund payments until we receive confirmation from the respondents of their decision, we are requesting emergency OMB approval for this collection. We will undergo the standard OMB clearance process after receiving emergency approval.
Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (“INA”), and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.
Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be maintained.
This determination shall be published in the
The eligible academic fields of study were selected to emphasize the areas of critical development need in Timor-Leste. USTL scholarships are typically offered for four years total including up to one year of English language and pre-academic training followed by up to three years for the completion of the undergraduate degree in designated fields. In almost all cases, USTL students will have undergraduate credits for transfer from their home institutions.
This program supports increased mutual understanding between the people of the U.S. and those of the South Pacific Islands. Students from the following nations are eligible to apply for these scholarships: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.
Fields of study under the program are based on recommendations from Department of State regional bureau representatives and Public Affairs Sections (PAS) at U.S. embassies abroad and include public administration, journalism, education, environmental studies, agriculture, political science, business and other fields. The recipient organization should arrange for the students' enrollment at accredited U.S. institutions of higher education where a full liberal arts curriculum (including social sciences, humanities and sciences) is available. Students selected for these scholarships enroll in four-year undergraduate degree programs, or in master's degree programs. South Pacific student applicants will not require pre-academic English training, but at the master's level, may benefit from up to one year of preparatory study in the U.S. prior to enrolling in a formal master's degree program.
The requirements for administration of this program are outlined in further detail in this document and in the Program Objectives, Goals and Implementation (POGI) document. The proposal should respond to each item in the POGI.
In a cooperative agreement, the Bureau is substantially involved in program activities above and beyond routine grant monitoring. Bureau activities and responsibilities for these programs include:
(1) Participation in the design and direction of program activities;
(2) Approval of key personnel;
(3) Approval and input on program timelines and agendas;
(4) Guidance in execution of all program components;
(5) Review and approval of all program publicity and recruitment materials;
(6) Participation in student interview and selection panels;
(7) Review of selection decisions prior to offer of award;
(8) Consultation on and approval of academic placement assignments;
(9) Approval of changes to students' proposed academic field or institution;
(10) Approval of decisions related to special circumstances or problems throughout duration of program;
(11) Assistance with SEVIS-related issues;
(12) Assistance with participant emergencies;
(13) Liaison with relevant U.S. Embassies and country desk officers at the State Department.
ECA's level of involvement in this program is listed under number I above.
Please read the complete announcement before sending inquiries or submitting proposals. Once the RFGP deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review process has been completed.
IV.1 Contact Information to Request an Application Package: Please contact Julia Findlay, East Asia and Pacific Programs Branch, ECA/A/E/EAP, SA–5, 4th Floor, U.S. Department of State, 2200 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037,
The Solicitation Package contains the Proposal Submission Instruction (PSI) document, which consists of required application forms, and standard guidelines for proposal preparation.
It also contains the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation (POGI) document, which provides specific information, award criteria and budget instructions tailored to this competition.
Please specify Julia Findlay and refer to the Funding Opportunity Number
Please read all information before downloading.
IV.3a You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the U.S. Government. This number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
IV.3b All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget.
Please Refer to the Solicitation Package. It contains the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) document and the Project Objectives, Goals and Implementation (POGI) document for additional formatting and technical requirements.
IV.3c All federal award recipients and sub-recipients must maintain current registrations in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database and have a Dun and Bradstreet Date Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. Recipients and sub-recipients must maintain accurate and up-to-date information in the CCR until all program and financial activity and reporting have been completed. All entities must review and update the information at least annually after the initial registration and more frequently if required information changes or another award is granted.
You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application.
(1) Those who file Internal Revenue Service Form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax,” must include a copy of relevant portions of this form.
(2) Those who do not file IRS Form 990 must submit information above in the format of their choice.
In addition to final program reporting requirements, award recipients will also be required to submit a one-page document, derived from their program reports, listing and describing their cooperative agreement activities. For award recipients, the names of directors and/or senior executives (current officers, trustees, and key employees), as well as the one-page description of cooperative agreement activities, will be transmitted by the State Department to OMB, along with other information required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), and will be made available to the public by the Office of Management and Budget on its USASpending.gov Web site as part of ECA's FFATA reporting requirements. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible.
IV.3d Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative:
IV.3d.1 Adherence to All Regulations Governing the J Visa
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places critically important emphases on the security and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by award recipients and sponsors to all regulations governing the J visa. Therefore, proposals should demonstrate the applicant's capacity to meet all requirements governing the administration of the Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR part 62, including the oversight of Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of forms, record-keeping, reporting and other requirements. The award recipient will be responsible for issuing DS–2019 forms to participants in this program.
A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor (J) programs is available at
Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information.
IV.3d.2 Diversity, Freedom and Democracy Guidelines
Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and disability. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ section for
IV.3d.3 Program Monitoring and Evaluation
Proposals must include a plan to monitor and evaluate the project's success, both as the activities unfold and at the end of the program. The Bureau recommends that your proposal include a draft survey questionnaire or other technique plus a description of a methodology to use to link outcomes to original project objectives. The Bureau expects that the recipient organization will track participants or partners and be able to respond to key evaluation questions, including satisfaction with the program, learning as a result of the program, changes in behavior as a result of the program, and effects of the program on institutions (institutions in which participants work or partner institutions). The evaluation plan should include indicators that measure gains in mutual understanding as well as substantive knowledge.
Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP.
Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program outputs and outcomes. Outputs are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. Outcomes, in contrast, represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and are usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes.
We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance):
1. Participant satisfaction with the program and exchange experience.
2. Participant learning, such as increased knowledge, aptitude, skills, and changed understanding and attitude. Learning includes both substantive (subject-specific) learning and mutual understanding.
3. Participant behavior, concrete actions to apply knowledge in work or community; greater participation and responsibility in civic organizations; interpretation and explanation of experiences and new knowledge gained; continued contacts between participants, community members, and others.
4. Institutional changes, such as increased collaboration and partnerships, policy reforms, new programming, and organizational improvements.
Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes.
Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it (1) specifies intended outcomes; (2) gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured; (3) identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and (4) provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome (i.e., surveys, interviews, or focus groups). (
Recipient organizations will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request.
IV.3d.4. Describe your plans for: i.e. sustainability, overall program management, staffing, coordination with ECA and PAS or any other requirements.
IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget:
IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit SF–424A—“Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs” along with a comprehensive budget for the entire program. In addition, the proposal must include a comprehensive budget narrative demonstrating how costs were derived. The budget format should break out costs on a year-by-year basis. The total amount of funding requested from ECA may not exceed $1,000,000 if applying to administer both the USTL and USSP programs; or $500,000 if applying to administer one of the two programs. At this level of funding, applicants are expected to budget for not fewer than ten (10) students for degree study, i.e., approximately five (5) each under the USTL and USSP programs. It is anticipated that applicants submitting proposals for both programs may realize economies of scale that would allow for more than ten (10) participants. The number of participants that the organization proposes to sponsor should be clearly stated. ECA reserves the right to reduce, revise or increase the proposed budget in accordance with funding availability and the needs of the program. There must be a budget summary page that breaks out program and administrative costs. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification.
IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following:
(1) Publicity, recruitment, selection, placement and communication with applicants and participants.
(2) Travel for student participants between home and program location.
(3) Tuition and fees, stipends for living costs, book allowances, and other necessary maintenance costs and expenses for the students.
(4) Advising and monitoring of students.
(5) Academic and cultural support and enrichment activities.
(6) Pre-return activities and evaluation.
(7) Staff and administrative expenses to carry out the program activities. Administrative and overhead costs should be as low as possible.
Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.
IV.3f. Application Deadline and Methods of Submission:
(1.) In hard-copy, via a nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., DHL, Federal Express, UPS, Airborne Express, or U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight Mail, etc.), or
(2.) electronically, through
Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF–424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) of the solicitation document.
IV.3f.1 Submitting Printed Applications
Applications must be shipped no later than the above deadline. Delivery services used by applicants must have in-place, centralized shipping identification and tracking systems that may be accessed via the Internet and delivery people who are identifiable by commonly recognized uniforms and delivery vehicles. Proposals shipped on or before the above deadline but received at ECA more than seven days after the deadline will be ineligible for further consideration under this competition. Proposals shipped after the established deadlines are ineligible for consideration under this competition. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of application. It is each applicant's responsibility to ensure that each package is marked with a legible tracking number and to monitor/confirm delivery to ECA via the Internet. Delivery of proposal packages may not be made via local courier service or in person for this competition. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Only proposals submitted as stated above will be considered.
When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF–424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”.
The original and 10 copies of the application should be sent to: Program Management Division, ECA–IIP/EX/PM,
IV.3f.2 Submitting Electronic Applications
Applicants have the option of submitting proposals electronically through Grants.gov (
ECA bears no responsibility for applicant timeliness of submission or data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes for proposals submitted via Grants.gov.
Please follow the instructions available in the `Get Started' portion of the site (
Once registered, the amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. In addition, validation of an electronic submission via Grants.gov can take up to two business days.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
The Grants.gov Web site includes extensive information on all phases/aspects of the Grants.gov process, including an extensive section on frequently asked questions, located under the “For Applicants” section of the Web site. ECA strongly recommends that all potential applicants review thoroughly the Grants.gov Web site, well in advance of submitting a proposal through the Grants.gov system. ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission on conversion processes.
Direct all questions regarding Grants.gov registration and submission to: Grants.gov Customer Support,
Applicants have until midnight (12 a.m.), Washington, DC time of the closing date to ensure that their entire application has been uploaded to the Grants.gov site. There are no exceptions to the above deadline. Applications uploaded to the site after midnight of the application deadline date will be automatically rejected by the grants.gov system, and will be technically ineligible.
Please refer to the Grants.gov Web site, for definitions of various “application statuses” and the difference between a submission receipt and a submission validation. Applicants will receive a validation e-mail from grants.gov upon the successful submission of an application. Again, validation of an electronic submission via Grants.gov can take up to two business days. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you not wait until the application deadline to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. ECA will not notify you upon receipt of electronic applications.
It is the responsibility of all applicants submitting proposals via the Grants.gov web portal to ensure that proposals have been received by Grants.gov in their entirety, and ECA bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.
IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
V.1 Review Process: The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for cooperative agreements resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.
Review Criteria: Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition.
Terms and Conditions for the Administration of ECA agreements include the following:
Please reference the following Web sites for additional information:
VI.3 Reporting Requirements: You must provide ECA with a hard copy original plus one copy of the following reports:
(1.) A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award;
(2.) A concise, one-page final program report summarizing program outcomes no more than 90 days after the expiration of the award. This one-page report will be transmitted to OMB, and be made available to the public via OMB's USAspending.gov Web site—as part of ECA's Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements.
(3.) A SF–PPR, “Performance Progress Report” Cover Sheet with all program reports.
(4.) Quarterly financial and program reports, the latter of which should include record and analysis of program activities from that period.
Award recipients will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information.
All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request.
All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document.
VI.4. Program Data Requirements:
Award recipients will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:
(1) Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the agreement or who benefit from the award funding but do not travel.
(2) Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three work days prior to the official opening of the activity.
For questions about this announcement, contact: Julia Findlay, Program Officer, U.S. Department of State, East Asia and Pacific Programs Branch (ECA/A/E/EAP), SA–5, 4th Floor,
All correspondence with the Bureau concerning this RFGP should reference the title and number
Please read the complete
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice; request for comments.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) is providing notice that on February 28, 2011, the People's Republic of China requested consultations with the United States under the
Although USTR will accept any comments received during the course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be submitted on or before May 2, 2011, to be assured of timely consideration by USTR.
Public comments should be submitted electronically to
Jared Wessel, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395–3150.
USTR is providing notice that consultations have been requested pursuant to the WTO
On February 28, 2011, China requested consultations regarding the antidumping duty investigation, a number of antidumping administrative reviews, and the sunset review conducted by the Department of Commerce on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from China, referring in particular to the use of what it describes as “zeroing” in those proceedings. Specifically, China requested consultations regarding the determinations by the Department of Commerce in (1)
China alleges that so-called zeroing is inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public comments electronically to
To submit comments via
The
A person requesting that information contained in a comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential business information must be clearly designated as such and the submission must be marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395–3640. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to
Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information or advice may qualify as such, the submitter—
(1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
(2) Must clearly mark the material as “SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE” at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
(3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or advice. Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must be submitted to
Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement proceeding accessible to the public at
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of the airport property. The proposal consists of remnants from 8 parcels of land, totaling approximately 7.33 acres. Current use and present condition is undeveloped land compatible with local commercial/industrial zoning classification. The land was acquired under the FAA Project Numbers 3–26–0055–3906, 3–26–0055–4107, and 3–26–0055–44208. The remnants left from construction activities during airport development are not usable to the airport due to shape and size. There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the airport to dispose of the property, since the land is no longer needed for aeronautical use. Subject land may provide good commercial/industrial development opportunities for the community and are well outside airport perimeter fence limits. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2011.
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the Detroit Airports District Office.
Marlon Pena, Program Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 11677 South Wayne Road, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Telephone Number (734) 229–2909 FAX Number (734) 229–2950. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same location or at Capital Region International Airport, Lansing, Michigan.
Following is a legal description of the property located in Lansing, Clinton County, Michigan, and described as follows:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control
The publishing of updated information by the Director of OFAC of the individual in this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 13224, is effective on March 24, 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 available from OFAC's Web site (
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 March 24, 2011, the Director of OFAC supplemented the identification information for one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.
The supplemental identification information for the individual is as follows:
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 SS–4, Application for Employer Identification Number, and Form SS–4PR, Solicitud de Numero de Indentification Patronal (EIN).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 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) 622–6688, 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 8951, Compliance Fee for Employee Plans Voluntary Correction Program Submission.
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette 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 Allan Hopkins, (202) 622–6665, 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 8951, Application for Voluntary Correction Program (VCP).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 2011 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, (202) 622–6665, 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. 8461, Nuclear Decommissioning Fund Qualification Requirements (§ 1.468A–3).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 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 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
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. 8706, Electronic Filing of Form W–4 (§ 31.3402(f)(5)–1).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 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 (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, TD 8537, Carryover of Passive Activity Losses and Credits and At-Risk Losses to Bankruptcy Estates of Individuals (§§ 1.1398–1 and 1.1398–2).
Written comments should be received on or before May 31, 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 this regulation should be directed to Joel Goldberger, (202)927–9368, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
regulations affect individual taxpayers who file bankruptcy petitions under chapter 7 or chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code and have passive activity losses and credits under section 469 or losses under section 465.
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
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, Department of Treasury
Request for nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests nominations of individuals for selection to the Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC). Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for IRPAC membership, including the applicant's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that he or she wishes to represent on the committee. In addition to individual nominations, the IRS is soliciting nominations from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representatives on the IRPAC. IRPAC is comprised of 24 members. There are seven positions open for calendar year 2012. It is important that IRPAC continue to represent a diverse taxpayer and stakeholder base. Accordingly, to maintain membership diversity, selection is based on the applicant's qualifications as well as the taxpayer or stakeholder base he/she represents.
The IRPAC advises the IRS on information reporting issues of mutual concern to the private sector and the federal government. The committee works with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and other IRS leadership to provide recommendations on a wide range of information reporting administration issues. Membership is balanced to include representation from the tax professional community, small and large businesses, banks, insurance companies, state tax administration, colleges and universities, securities, payroll, financial institutions and other industries.
Written nominations must be received on or before May 31, 2011.
Nominations should be sent to: Ms. Caryl Grant, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:SRM, Room 7559 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224,
Ms. Caryl Grant at 202–927–3641 (not a toll-free number) or *
Established in 1991 in response to an administrative recommendation in the final Conference Report of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the IRPAC works closely with the IRS to provide recommendations on a wide range of issues intended to improve the information reporting program and achieve fairness to taxpayers. Conveying the public's perception of IRS activities to the Commissioner, the IRPAC is comprised of individuals who bring substantial, disparate experience and diverse backgrounds to the Committee's activities.
The IRPAC members are nominated by the Commissioner with the concurrence of the Secretary of Treasury to serve a three-year term. Working groups address policies and administration issues specific to information reporting. Members are not paid for their services. However, travel expenses for working sessions, public meetings and orientation sessions, such as airfare, per diem, and transportation are reimbursed within prescribed federal travel limitations.
Receipt of applications will be acknowledged, and all individuals will be notified when selections have been made. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21–03, a clearance process including, fingerprints, annual tax checks, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal check, and a practitioner check with the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted. Federally-registered lobbyists cannot be members of the IRPAC.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed for all appointments to the IRPAC in accordance with the Department of Treasury and IRS policies. To ensure that the IRPAC recommendations take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the IRS, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals who demonstrate the ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2011.
Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information, please contact Ms. Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 3, 2011 and Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notice Improvement Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 3, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, May 4, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time at 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Jenkins. For more information, please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post comments to the web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2011.
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Audrey Jenkins. For more information, please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
Donna Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, May 4, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information, please contact Ms. Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to the web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 17, 2011.
Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011.
Patricia Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 11:30 a.m., Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
Timothy Shepard at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, May 4, 2011, at 11 a.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Timothy Shepard. For more information, please contact Mr. Shepard at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011.
Janice Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 2 p.m., Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098, or write TAP Office,
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, May 23, 2011.
Marianne Ayala at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7978.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Earned Income Tax Credit Project Committee will be held Monday, May 23, 2011, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marianne Ayala. For more information please contact Ms. Ayala at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at the web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 5, 2011 and Friday, May 6, 2011.
Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 5, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, May 6, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Eastern Time at 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Knispel. For more information, please contact Ms. Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011; Friday, May 20, 2011; and Saturday, May 21, 2011.
Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 19, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday, May 20, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Saturday, May 21, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific Time in San Diego, CA. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Ellen Smiley. For more information and site location, please contact Ms. Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203–2221, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Correspondence Exam Practitioner Engagement Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving
The meeting will be held Monday, May 23, 2011 and Tuesday, May 24, 2011.
Janice Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Correspondence Exam Practitioner Engagement Project Committee will be held Monday, May 23, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, May 24, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Mountain Time in Denver, CO. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notifications of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Janice Spinks. For more information and site location please contact Ms. Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Correspondence Exam Toll Free Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, May 16, 2011 and Tuesday, May 17, 2011.
Timothy Shepard at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self Employed Correspondence Exam Toll Free Project Committee will be held Monday, May 16, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Tuesday, May 17, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Pacific Time in Seattle, WA. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Timothy Shepard. For more information and site location please contact Mr. Shepard at 1–888–912–1227 or 206–220–6095, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Dated: March 24, 2011.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, May 26, 2011.
Susan Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, May 26, 2011, at 2 p.m., Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or (515) 564–6638 or write: TAP Office, 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Moines, IA 50309, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2011; Thursday, May 19, 2011; and Friday, May 20, 2011.
Donna Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Project Committee will be held Wednesday, May 18, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursday, May 19, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Friday, May 20, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time in Atlanta, GA. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information and site location, please contact Ms. Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or 954–423–7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various IRS Issues
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of Proposed New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of a proposed new system of records entitled “Treasury/IRS 42.888—Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Records.”
Comments must be received no later than May 2, 2011. This new system of records will be effective May 2, 2011 unless the IRS receives comments which would result in a contrary determination.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Governmental Liaison and Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be available for inspection and copying in the Freedom of Information Reading Room (Room 1621), at the above address. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 622–5164. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, received are subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
Dave Thurber, Chief, Abusive Transactions and Technical Issues (ATTI) Group, Office of Examination, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, Internal Revenue Service, (707) 646–7291 (
The IRS is required to administer, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Program pursuant to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–152) (Affordable Care Act).
The qualifying therapeutic discovery tax credit targets projects that show significant potential to produce new therapies, address unmet medical needs, reduce the long-term growth of health care costs, and advance the goal of curing cancer within the next 30 years. Allocation of credits will also take into consideration which projects show the greatest potential to create and sustain high-quality, high-paying jobs in the United States and to advance our competitiveness in the fields of life, biological, and medical sciences.
This proposed new system will contain information regarding qualifying therapeutic discovery projects that are designed to develop a product, process, or therapy to diagnose, treat, or prevent diseases and afflictions by: (1) Conducting pre-clinical activities, clinical trials, clinical studies, and research protocols; or (2) developing technology or products designed to diagnose diseases and conditions, including molecular and companion drugs and diagnostics, or to further the delivery or administration of therapeutics.
The Affordable Care Act requires the IRS to disclose certain information to the public regarding the amount of the grant or credit, the identity of the person receiving the grant or credit, and a description of the project with respect to which the grant was made or the credit allowed. This proposed new system includes a routine use authorizing these disclosures to comply with the Act and the intent of Congress to publicize projects that show significant potential to produce new and cost-saving therapies, support good jobs, and increase U.S. competitiveness.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of a new system of records has been provided to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget.
The system of records entitled “Treasury/IRS 42.888—Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Records” is published in its entirety below.
Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Records.
IRS Campus, Covington, KY.
Individuals who file an Application for a Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project credit (or grant in lieu of credit) in their individual capacity or on behalf of their sole proprietorship.
These records include information pertaining to the IRS's administration of the Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Project Program. Records include, but are not limited to the application, including Form 8942 and the Project Information Memorandum, representative authorization information, and a unique administrative control identifier associated with each application for certification. The records may contain taxpayer names and Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) (social security number (SSN)).
5 U.S.C. 301 and 26 U.S.C. 48D and 7801. Section 9023(a) of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P. L. 111–152) [Affordable Care Act].
To administer, in consultation with the Department of Health & Human Services, a qualifying therapeutic discovery project program to consider and award certifications for qualified investments eligible for the credit (or, at the taxpayer's election, the grant) to qualifying therapeutic discovery project sponsors.
Disclosure of returns and return information may be made only as provided by 26 U.S.C. 6103. All other records may be used as described below if the IRS deems that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which IRS collected the records, and no privilege is asserted.
(1) To disclose certain information to the public regarding the amount of the grant, the identity of the person to whom the grant was made, and a description of the project with respect to which the grant was made in accordance with the intent of Congress to publicize the projects that show significant potential to produce new and cost-saving therapies, support good jobs, and increase U.S. competitiveness.
(2) Disclose information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when seeking legal advice or for use in any proceeding, or in preparation for any proceeding, when: (a) The IRS or any component thereof; (b) any IRS employee in his or her official capacity;
(3) Disclose information during a proceeding before a court, administrative tribunal, or other adjudicative body when: (a) The IRS or any component thereof; (b) any IRS employee in his or her official capacity; (c) any IRS employee in his or her personal capacity if the IRS or DOJ has agreed to provide representation for the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to, has an interest in, or is likely to be affected by, the proceeding and the IRS or DOJ determines that the information is relevant and necessary to the proceeding. Information may be disclosed to the adjudicative body to resolve issues of relevancy, necessity, or privilege pertaining to the information.
(4) Disclose information to an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency, or other public authority, responsible for implementing or enforcing, or for investigating or prosecuting the violation of a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a potential violation of law or regulation and the information disclosed is relevant to any regulatory, enforcement, investigative, or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving authority.
(5) Disclose information to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
(6) Disclose information to a contractor, including an expert witness or a consultant hired by the IRS, to the extent necessary for the performance of a contract.
(7) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the Department 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 the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(8) Disclose information to professional organizations or associations with which individuals covered by this system of records may be affiliated, such as state bar disciplinary authorities, to meet their responsibilities in connection with the administration and maintenance of standards of conduct and discipline.
Paper records and electronic media.
By taxpayer name and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) (social security number (SSN), employer identification number (EIN), or similar number assigned by the IRS.
Only persons authorized by law will have access to these records. Access controls are not less than those published in IRM 10.8.1, Information Technology (IT) Security Policy and Guidance, and IRM 10.2, Physical Security Program.
Records are maintained in accordance with IRM 1.15, Records Management.
Commissioner, SB/SE, 5000 Ellin Road, New Carrollton, MD 20706.
Individuals seeking to determine if this system of records contains a record pertaining to themselves may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed as in “Record Access Procedures” below.
Individuals seeking access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed to Disclosure Office 5, Room 7019, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202. The IRS may assert 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5) as appropriate.
26 U.S.C. 7852(e) prohibits Privacy Act amendment of tax records. For all other records,
Records in this system are provided by the applicants, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the IRS taxpayer account records.
None.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice and request for comments.
This document describes corrections to a notice and request for comments that was published in the
Requests for additional information or copies of the forms and instructions should be directed to Ralph Terry at (202) 622–8144, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The notice and request for comments that is the subject of this correction is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
As published, the notice and request for comments for Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2008–113 contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice and request for comments for Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2008–113, which was the
1. On page 12415, column 1, in the document heading, the language “Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2007–100” is corrected to read “Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2008–113”.
2. On page 12415, column 1, under the caption
3. On page 12415, column 1, under the caption
4. On page 12415, column 1, under the caption
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet on April 18–19, 2011, at the St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments in the afternoon. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1–2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Dr. Corina Negrescu, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Compensation and Pension Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, or e-mail at
By Direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on April 14–15, 2011, in Room 250, Department of Veterans Affairs, 1575 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC. On April 14, the session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On April 15, the session will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 12 noon. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
The meeting will feature presentations and discussions on VA's geriatrics and extended care programs, aging research activities, update on VA's employee staff working in the area of geriatrics (to include training, recruitment and retention approaches), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) strategic planning activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts regarding dementia and program advances in palliative care, and performance and oversight of the VA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Marcia Holt-Delaney, Program Analyst, Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (114), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting should contact Mrs. Holt-Delaney at (202) 461–6769 or e-mail at
By direction of the Secretary.