Commodity Credit Corporation
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Commodity Credit Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture.
Final rule.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued regulatory guidance to agencies to establish requirements for Federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients that are necessary for the implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (the Transparency Act). OMB's regulations require agencies that make awards of Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act to include the requirements identified in each regulation that has application or plan due dates after October 1, 2010. The Watershed Operations and Flood Prevention Program, Emergency Watersheds Protection Program, Healthy Forests Reserve Program, Agricultural Management Assistance Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program have application or plan due dates after October 1, 2010, and therefore, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is incorporating the Transparency Act's recipient registration and reporting requirements into these programs' regulations. These changes, the terms of which are not subject to agency discretion, are mandatory.
Martha Joseph, Special Assistant, Easements and Landscape Planning, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5109 South Building, Washington, DC 20250; Telephone: (202) 205-7704; or E-mail:
OMB published two regulations, 2 CFR parts 25 and 170, to assist agencies and recipients of Federal financial assistance to comply with the Transparency Act (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended). Both regulations have implementation requirements beginning October 1, 2010.
The regulations at 2 CFR part 25 require, with some exceptions, recipients of Federal financial assistance to apply for and receive a Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering Systems (DUNS) number and register in the Central Contractor Registry. Section 25.200(a) of Title 2 of the CFR requires each agency to include the registration requirements identified in part 25 in each regulation that has application or plan due dates after October 1, 2010.
The regulations at 2 CFR part 170 establish new requirements for Federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and subrecipients. The regulation provides standard wording that each agency must include in its awarding of financial assistance that requires recipients to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under those awards. Section 170.200(a) of Title 2 of the CFR requires each agency that makes awards of Federal financial assistance subject to the Transparency Act to include the requirements identified in part 170 in each regulation that has application or plan due dates after October 1, 2010.
NRCS has determined that 2 CFR parts 25 and 170 apply to certain awards of financial assistance provided under the Watershed Operations and Flood Prevention Program (7 CFR part 622), Emergency Watershed Protection Program (7 CFR part 624), Healthy Forests Reserve Program (7 CFR part 625), Agricultural Management Assistance Program (7 CFR part 1465), and the Conservation Stewardship Program (7 CFR part 1470). Since these conservation programs either have continuous application periods or will have an application due date after October 1, 2010, NRCS determined that each of its program regulations under which NRCS provides Federal financial assistance must be amended to incorporate this requirement immediately.
Several of NRCS' other conservation programs have pending or recently promulgated rulemaking, and NRCS is incorporating parts 25 and 170 requirements as these pending rules are cleared and published. These pending rules are final rules to implement the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (7 CFR part 1466—pending), Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (7 CFR part 1491—published January 24, 2011), Grassland Reserve Program (7 CFR part 1415—published November 29, 2010), Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (7 CFR part 636—published November 23, 2010), and the Wetlands Reserve Program (7 CFR part 1467—pending).
This final rule incorporates this mandated change into the regulations implementing the Watershed Operations and Flood Prevention Program, Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Healthy Forests Reserve Program, Agricultural Management Assistance Program, and the Conservation Stewardship Program. These changes are non-discretionary on the part of the agency, and thus, no public comments are being solicited.
This final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as specified in Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this final rule because neither the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) nor NRCS is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other provision of law, to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
The General Services Administration has recently published the information collections for public comment that
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, NRCS assessed the affects of this rulemaking action on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the public. This action does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted by inflation) by any State, local, or Tribal governments, or anyone in the private sector; therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is not required.
Administrative practice and procedures, Cooperative agreements, Farmers, Federal aid programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 622, 624, 625, 1465, and 1470 are amended as follows:
Pub. L. 83-566, 68 Stat. 666 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001,
(d) Sponsors who receive financial assistance awarded after October 1, 2010, must comply with applicable registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended), and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170.
Sec. 216, Pub. L. 81-516, 33 U.S.C. 701b-1; Sec. 403, Pub. L. 95-334, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 2203; 5 U.S.C. 301.
(a) * * *
(2) Sponsors must:
(i) Contribute their share of the project costs, as determined by NRCS, by providing funds or certain services necessary to undertake the activity. Contributions that may be applied towards the sponsor's applicable cost-share of construction costs include:
(A) Cash;
(B) In-kind services such as labor, equipment, design, surveys, contract administration and construction inspection, and other services as determined by the State Conservationist; or
(C) A combination of cash and in-kind services;
(ii) Obtain any necessary real property rights, water rights, and regulatory permits;
(iii) Agree to provide for any required operation and maintenance of the completed emergency measures; and
(iv) Comply with applicable registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended), and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170.
16 U.S.C. 6571-6578.
(b)
(1) Be the landowner of eligible land for which enrollment is sought;
(2) Agree to provide such information to NRCS, as the agency deems necessary or desirable, to assist in its determination of eligibility for program benefits and for other program implementation purposes; and
(3) Comply with applicable registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended), and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170.
7 U.S.C. 1524(b).
(c) * * *
(10) Be in compliance with the terms of all other USDA-administered conservation program agreements to which the participant is a party;
(11) Develop and agree to comply with an APO and O&M agreement, as described in § 1465.3; and
(12) Comply with applicable registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended), and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170.
16 U.S.C. 3838d-3838g.
(a) * * *
(4) Supply information, as required by NRCS, to determine eligibility for the program, including but not limited to, information related to eligibility requirements and ranking factors, conservation activity and production system records, information to verify the applicant's status as a historically underserved producer, if applicable, and payment eligibility as established by 7 CFR part 1400;
(5) Provide a list of all members of the legal entity and embedded entities along with members' tax identification numbers and percentage interest in the entity. Where applicable, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Pacific Islanders may use another unique identification number for each individual eligible for payment; and
(6) Comply with applicable registration and reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, as amended), and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission issues final amendments to its Rule for Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting (“Fuel Rating Rule” or “Rule”) by allowing an alternative octane rating method and making other miscellaneous revisions. The Commission declines to issue final ethanol labeling amendments at this time.
The amendments published in this document will become effective May 31, 2011. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 31, 2011.
Matthew Wilshire, (202) 326-2976, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
In 2009, the Commission solicited comments on its Fuel Rating Rule as part of a systematic review of its rules and guides.
Commenters supported the proposed octane rating method, suggested allowing an additional octane rating method, objected to several aspects of the proposed ethanol labeling requirements, argued for revision of the Rule's biodiesel fuel provisions, and recommended further miscellaneous changes. Below, the Commission responds to those comments and announces final amendments that allow an alternative octane rating method.
The final amendments do not address ethanol fuel labeling. Instead, the Commission will address this issue at a later date. As discussed below, commenters criticized the proposed labels, supporting different or additional disclosures to prevent misfueling. Moreover, after the comment period closed, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a waiver pursuant to the Clean Air Act that allows use of ethanol-gasoline blends of up to 15 percent ethanol concentration (“E15”) in certain conventional vehicles, subject to EPA approval. In light of the comments and EPA's waiver decision, the Commission finds that more time is necessary to address this issue. The Commission, however, will not delay final rulemaking regarding the proposed alternate octane rating method and biodiesel fuels because announcing final decisions regarding both is in the public interest.
This document first provides background on the Fuel Rating Rule, then discusses the comments submitted. Finally, it responds to those comments and describes the final amendments in detail.
The Commission first promulgated the Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR part 306 (then titled the “Octane Certification and Posting Rule”), in 1979 in accordance with the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”), 15 U.S.C. 2801
The Fuel Rating Rule designates methods for rating and certifying fuels, as well as posting the ratings at the point of sale. The Rule also requires refiners, importers, and producers of any liquid automotive fuel to determine that fuel's “automotive fuel rating” before transferring it to a distributor or retailer. For gasoline, covered entities must determine the octane rating by deriving research octane and motor octane numbers using “ASTM International” (“ASTM”)
The Commission received 12 comments in response to its March 2, 2009
On March 16, 2010, the Commission published an NPRM responding to the commenters' suggestions and proposing four substantive Rule amendments. First, to allow Mid-Level Ethanol blend labeling above 10 percent and below 50 percent concentration, the proposed amendments would have required rating ethanol fuels by the amount of ethanol in the blend, rather than by the principal component of the fuel. Second, the proposed amendments would have required retailers to post labels disclosing a Mid-Level Ethanol blend's ethanol content by displaying a broad range of “10 to 70 percent ethanol,” a narrower range, or a specific percentage. Third, the proposed amendments would have required all ethanol fuel labels, including those for E85,
The Commission did not propose revising the Rule's biodiesel fuel provisions. The Commission explained that rating blends at or below 5 percent would unnecessarily burden producers. Furthermore, the Commission noted, retailers that blended biodiesel could either test the resulting blend, or blend in a manner that would ensure that the fuel fell within one of the Rule's three biodiesel labeling categories, and, therefore, did not need rating information to comply with the Rule.
The Commission received 62 comments in response to the NPRM.
The American Petroleum Institute (“API”), ConocoPhillips, Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC (“Marathon”), and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (“NPRA”) addressed the Commission's proposal to allow octane rating through the On-Line Method. All supported the proposal, though API and Marathon noted that the ASTM standards referenced in the proposed amendments are now outdated.
Tesoro, a manufacturer and marketer of petroleum products, suggested expanding the Rule's provisions to allow octane rating through infrared analyzers (“Infrared Method”), which Tesoro asserted “provide more reliable results.”
A recent interlaboratory study was conducted to demonstrate the accuracy and precision of infrared analyzers for octane. Based on the results of that study involving six laboratories, near infrared analyzers showed significantly better precision over ASTM D2699 and D2700 octane [methods].
Tesoro also specifically addressed the enforcement issues surrounding the Infrared Method:
We also believe that in case of a discrepancy between the posted octane rating and the octane of the sample, ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700 should continue to be used as the referee method. This approach, which is consistent with the enforcement approach used by State regulatory agencies, should not impose any additional enforcement burden on the Commission—since ASTM D2699 and ASTM D2700 would continue to be the referee method.
Several State regulators supported Tesoro's proposal. For example, the Washington State Department of Agriculture reported that it “has used portable infrared octane analyzers successfully in the field to test octane levels on gasoline motor fuels for over 10 years” and that it has “found portable infrared analyzers to be an accurate and low cost tool in determining octane level compliance.”
Significantly, the Center for Auto Safety (“CAS”), a consumer group, also supported Tesoro's position. CAS explained that allowing the method would ease enforcement and, therefore, benefit consumers:
Many States now use infrared analyzers to determine octane because they are cheaper, more accurate and permit greater number[s] of dispensing pump inspections per day than using octane engines. * * * Approving infrared analyzers calibrated to measure octane would allow greater levels of enforcement and increased quality control by refiners at lower cost.
Six commenters addressed the Rule's biodiesel fuel provisions. Generally, these commenters disagreed with the Commission's decision not to propose amendments to those provisions and urged reconsideration. The commenters supported rating biodiesel blends containing 5 percent or less biodiesel, exempting “renewable diesel” that qualifies as biomass-based diesel, and allowing a less precise content disclosure for biodiesel blends above 20 percent concentration.
The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (“PMAA”) explained why it believed rating blends less than 5 percent concentration is necessary:
Currently, distributors and retailers are receiving biodiesel blends from suppliers in which they have no idea of the actual biodiesel content. Therefore, it is impossible for these downstream parties to accurately notify consumers [of] the biodiesel content of the fuel they are offering for sale other than providing a possible blend range. * * * 97% of all retail gasoline stations are owned by petroleum marketers who are classified as small businesses under the U.S. Small Business Administration's size standards. Refiners, producers and distributors above the terminal rack are large businesses. * * * It would be entirely appropriate to shift this compliance burden to the large businesses who are not only more able to bear the burden but also in a better position to track and notify the amount of biodiesel they are adding to product upstream of the terminal rack.
Although the comments that addressed the issue favored expanding the Rule's biodiesel requirements, they favored abolishing the Rule's requirements to rate, certify, and post renewable diesel, a type of biomass-based diesel.
In addition, API asserted that it is unclear whether the relevant statute defines renewable diesel as biomass-based diesel. Specifically, it argued that whether a particular batch of renewable diesel met EISA's definition of biomass-based diesel depended on how a manufacturer processed it. Thus, according to API, the Rule would require different labeling for two different batches of the exact same fuel, an outcome API described as “absurd.”
Finally, API suggested loosening the Rule's requirements for over 20 percent concentration biodiesel blends. Specifically, it favored amending the Rule, which currently requires disclosure of the precise volume percentage, to allow disclosure of a percentage range similar to that proposed in the NPRM for Mid-Level Ethanol blends.
A majority of the commenters submitted views and evidence regarding the proposed ethanol fuel labeling disclosures. Generally, the commenters objected to the proposed labels' disclosures. Several commenters, including an association of ethanol producers, argued that the labels unfairly conveyed a negative message about the fuel's quality, with two of those commenters asserting that the proposed disclosures were beyond the Commission's authority under PMPA. In contrast, other commenters argued that the risks from ethanol misfueling necessitated a stronger and more precise disclosure regarding the amount of ethanol in the fuel and the suitability of such fuel for various vehicles or engines.
As discussed below, the Commission is not announcing ethanol labeling amendments at this time. Therefore, this document will not analyze the ethanol labeling comments in depth.
Several comments raised miscellaneous issues. First, as discussed above, Tesoro and other commenters noted out-of-date ASTM references in the Rule. Second, API argued that the Rule should not require a Helvetica Black font but rather allow any legible block type font because Microsoft Word does not offer Helvetica Black.
After considering the record, the Commission now issues final Rule amendments. Specifically, the Commission will issue amendments allowing octane rating through the On-Line Method and adopting several minor, miscellaneous amendments. In addition, the Commission retains the Rule's biodiesel fuel provisions in their current form.
At this time, the Commission declines to issue ethanol fuel amendments because further consideration of the comments and EPA's recent waiver decision is necessary. The Commission also declines to issue amendments
The NPRM proposed allowing octane rating through the On-Line Method as specified in ASTM D2885. The Rule currently requires use of octane rating methods specified in ASTM D2699 and D2700. PMPA, however, authorizes the Commission to consider other methods. The On-Line Method detailed in ASTM D2885 produces the exact same octane rating as the D2699 and D2700 methods.
Commenters raised several miscellaneous issues. First, some commenters noted that the current Rule and the proposed amendments contain outdated ASTM references. Accordingly, the final amendments update all ASTM references, including those proposed in the NPRM. The Commission does not, however, amend the Rule to adopt these standards without reference to a publication year, as suggested by some commenters. Doing so would incorporate those standards as they change over time. If a referenced ASTM standard changed in an unanticipated way, it could change the Rule's meaning without public notice and comment, or consideration by the Commission. Second, one commenter opposed any provision imposing liability for misfueling. Nothing in the Rule or the final amendments imposes such liability. Third, API noted that Helvetica Black font is not universally available. The final amendments, therefore, allow Helvetica Black or equivalent type. Finally, AAM suggested several technical amendments, including revisions to the biodiesel fuel definitions to make clear that the Rule covers blends of biodiesel and biomass-based diesel. Although the Commission does not intend to exclude such blends, the definitions of those fuels are prescribed by EISA and, therefore, the Commission declines to alter them.
In addition to the commenters' suggested changes, the Commission amends the Rule's labeling specifications to address an inconsistency. Section 306.12(b)(2) requires all uppercase type for labels for all alternative fuels. Sections 306.12(a)(4) through (9), however, require some lowercase type on biodiesel fuel labels. The Commission, therefore, amends § 306.12(b)(2) to make clear that its all-caps requirement does not apply to labeling requirements for biodiesel fuels.
Several commenters urged the Commission to make three changes to the Rule's biodiesel fuel provisions. First, they reiterated an earlier request to require rating and certification of biodiesel blends at or below 5 percent concentration. Second, they asked the Commission to reconsider excluding biomass-based diesel (or at least a certain type of biomass-based diesel) from the Rule. Finally, API supported allowing a biodiesel content disclosure using a broad range.
In the NPRM, the Commission declined to propose amendments subjecting biodiesel blends at or below 5 percent concentration to the Rule's rating and certification requirements. The Commission explained that doing so would unnecessarily burden producers and distributors by requiring them to rate fuel that does not require a label under EISA
Although the Rule may burden small businesses, adopting the proposed change would increase the
In the NPRM, the Commission explained that it cannot exempt biomass-based diesel blends or provide for different labels because Section 205 of EISA specifically requires labels for all biomass-based diesel blends above 5 percent concentration.
In response, API argued that, depending on how they are processed, certain renewable diesel blends would meet the statutory definition of “biomass-based diesel” and other renewable diesel blends with the exact same properties would not. API characterized this result as “absurd.” However, API's interpretation of the law appears to rest on a misreading of EISA. Specifically, API relies on a definition of “biomass-based diesel” from Section 201 of EISA, but a different section of EISA defines “biomass-based diesel” for labeling purposes. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. 17021, which is titled “Biomass-
The Commission also declines to adopt API's suggestion to rescind the Rule's requirement to disclose the precise percentage of biodiesel for fuels over 20 percent concentration. As the Commission explained when it first announced the Rule's biodiesel provisions, the performance of biodiesel blends containing more than 20 percent biodiesel is uncertain and can vary significantly.
In the NPRM, the Commission proposed new rating and certification requirements for Mid-Level Ethanol blends and new labeling requirements for all ethanol fuels. Specifically, the proposed amendments would have required rating and certifying Mid-Level Ethanol blends by their ethanol content and labeling all ethanol fuels with the statements:
• MAY HARM SOME VEHICLES
• CHECK OWNER'S MANUAL
As noted above, commenters generally criticized the proposed disclosures as unfairly denigrating ethanol or as insufficiently specific to prevent misfueling. In addition, after the FTC's Fuel Rating Rule comment period closed, EPA issued a Clean Air Act waiver allowing E15, which the proposed amendments defined as a Mid-Level Ethanol blend, in certain conventional vehicles.
However, EPA placed two significant conditions on its waiver. First, the fuel must meet certain fuel quality standards.
In light
Although the NPRM did not propose octane rating methods other than the On-Line Method, many commenters, including State regulators and the consumer group CAS, supported allowing the Infrared Method because it is more accurate than currently prescribed methods, less expensive, subject to an ASTM standard, and enables easy enforcement. In addition, commenters urged the Commission to require octane labels for E15 to assist owners of conventional cars that require higher-octane fuel (
The Fuel Rating Rule's octane rating and certification requirements constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (“PRA”). Specifically, under the final amendments, refiners, importers, and producers of gasoline must determine the fuel's octane rating, and then certify that rating to any transferee. Furthermore, they must retain, for one year, records of any delivery tickets, letters of certification, or tests upon which they based the automotive fuel ratings that they certify.
In its NPRM, the Commission estimated that the proposed amendments would impose additional recordkeeping and disclosure burdens. However, the Commission based those estimates on the proposed amendments related to rating, certifying, and labeling ethanol fuels. The Commission believes that the final amendments do not impose any additional burdens or costs as they provide an alternate octane rating method (
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the final octane amendments will not impose any additional recordkeeping or disclosure burden. If the Commission issues final amendments regarding ethanol rating, certification, and labeling, it will re-examine the NPRM's burden estimates of those amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to provide a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the final rule unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FTC reaffirms its belief that the final amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed in Section V, above, the amendments allowing alternative octane measurements do not impose any new costs on covered entities because those amendments provide those entities with the option of using the octane rating method currently required by the Rule. Although the NPRM provided an initial analysis of the amendments' impact on small entities, that analysis examined only the ethanol amendments, which provided new requirements.
This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency's certification of no effect. If the Commission issues final amendments regarding ethanol rating, certification, and labeling, it will assess the economic impact of the amendments on small entities.
Fuel ratings, Incorporation by reference, Trade practices.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 306, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2801
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b)
(i) ASTM D2699-09, ”Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (published November 2009)” and ASTM D2700-09, “Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel (published November 2009)”; or
(ii) ASTM D2885-10, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison Technique (published March 2010).”
(2) The incorporations by reference of ASTM D4814-10b, ASTM D2699-09, ASTM D2700-09, and ASTM D2885-10 in paragraph (b)(1) of this Section, and in § 306.5(a), were approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM D4814-10b, ASTM D2699-09, ASTM D2700-09, and ASTM D2885-10, may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or 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:
(i) * * *
Provided, however, that biodiesel blends and biomass-based diesel blends that contain less than or equal to 5 percent biodiesel by volume and less than or equal to 5 percent biomass-based diesel by volume, and that meet ASTM standard D975-09b “Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils (published August 2009),” are not automotive fuels covered by the requirements of this Part. The incorporation of ASTM D975-09b by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM D975-09b may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, or at NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
(j)
(2) For an alternative liquid automotive fuel other than biodiesel, biomass-based diesel, biodiesel blends, or biomass-based diesel blends, the commonly used name of the fuel with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as the minimum percentage by volume, of the principal component of the fuel. A disclosure of other components, expressed as the minimum percentage by volume, may be included, if desired.
(3) For biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, biomass-based diesel blends with more than 5 percent biomass-based diesel, and biodiesel blends with more than 5 percent biodiesel, a disclosure of the biomass-based diesel or biodiesel component, expressed as the percentage by volume.
(l)
(a) To determine the automotive fuel rating of gasoline, add the research octane number and the motor octane
(1) Use ASTM standard test method ASTM D2699-09, “Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” (incorporated by reference, see § 306.0(b)(2)), to determine the research octane number, and ASTM standard test method ASTM D2700-09, “Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel” (incorporated by reference, see § 306.0(b)(2)), to determine the motor octane number; or
(2) Use the test method set forth in ASTM D2885-10, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuels by On-Line Direct Comparison Technique” (incorporated by reference, see § 306.0(b)(2)).
(b) Give the person a letter or other written statement. This letter must include the date, your name, the other person's name, and the automotive fuel rating of any automotive fuel you will transfer to that person from the date of the letter onwards. Octane rating numbers may be rounded to a whole or half number equal to or less than the number determined by you. This letter of certification will be good until you transfer automotive fuel with a lower automotive fuel rating, except that a letter certifying the fuel rating of biomass-based diesel, biodiesel, a biomass-based diesel blend, or a biodiesel blend will be good only until you transfer those fuels with a different automotive fuel rating, whether the rating is higher or lower. When this happens, you must certify the automotive fuel rating of the new automotive fuel either with a delivery ticket or by sending a new letter of certification.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(A) The capital letter “B” followed immediately by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel in the fuel (e.g., “B20”) and then by the term “Biodiesel Blend”; or
(B) The term “Biodiesel Blend.”
(ii) The band should measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the text in the band is
(5)
(A) The numerical value representing the volume percentage of biomass-based diesel in the fuel followed immediately by the percentage symbol (
(B) The term “Biomass-Based Diesel Blend.”
(ii) The band should measure 1 inch (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the text in the band is
(b)
(2)
(3)
By direction of the Commission.
Social Security Administration.
Final Rules.
We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (the listings) that we use to evaluate claims under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act) involving endocrine disorders in adults and children. The revisions reflect our adjudicative experience, advances in medical knowledge, information from medical experts, and comments we received from the public in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and at an outreach policy conference.
These rules are effective June 7, 2011.
Judy Hicks, Social Insurance Specialist, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet Web site, Social Security Online, at
We are making final the rules for evaluating endocrine disorders that we proposed in an NPRM we published in the
Listings describe medical conditions that are so severe that we presume any person who has a medical condition(s) that satisfies the criteria of a listing is unable to perform any gainful activity and, therefore, is disabled. The inability to work must also have lasted or be expected to last for at least 12 continuous months or be expected to result in death; we call this provision “the duration requirement.”
We are revising the listings for endocrine disorders because medical science has made significant advances in detecting endocrine disorders at earlier stages and newer treatments have resulted in better management of these conditions since we last published final rules making comprehensive revisions to the endocrine listings in 1985. Consequently, most endocrine disorders do not reach listing-level severity because they do not become sufficiently severe or do not remain at a sufficient level of severity long enough to meet our 12-month duration requirement. Therefore, we have determined that, with the exception of children under age 6 who have diabetes mellitus (DM) and require daily insulin, we should no longer have listings in sections 9.00 and 109.00 based on endocrine disorders alone.
We will use these final rules beginning on their effective date. We will continue to use the current listings until the date these final rules become effective. We will apply the final rules to new applications filed on or after the effective date of the final rules and to claims that are pending on and after the effective date.
In the NPRM, we provided the public a 60-day comment period, which ended on February 12, 2010. We received 16 public comment letters. The comments came from national medical organizations, advocacy groups, a national group of Social Security claimants' representatives, individual State agencies, a Congressman, and members of the public.
We provide below summaries of the significant comments that were relevant to this rulemaking and our responses to those comments. We did not summarize or respond to some of the comments we received. Some commenters supported the proposed changes and noted provisions with which they agreed. We appreciate those comments, but they do not require a response. Some commenters also sent us comments on subjects that were unrelated to the proposed rules. These comments were outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking, and we have not responded to them.
When adults' medical conditions do not satisfy a listing, we must assess the particular functional effects of their impairments; that is, we must determine their “residual functional capacity” (RFC). Considering the RFC, we then determine whether they can do any past relevant work, or if they cannot, any other work that exists in the national economy, considering their RFC, age, education, and previous work experience.
When a person qualifies for disability benefits under a listing, we continue to use that same listing when we later determine if he or she is still disabled. See §§ 404.1594(c)(3)(i), 416.994(b)(2)(iv), and 416.994a(b)(2). This rule applies even if we have removed or changed the listing since we last found that the beneficiary was disabled. For this reason, we will not find that a beneficiary's disability has ended solely because we have removed the DM listings or any other endocrine disorder listing. Unless we are otherwise required to do so (for example, by statute), we do not readjudicate cases because we have revised our listings.
Some commenters thought that we assumed that all claimants had full access to state-of-the-art healthcare. Some mentioned serious outcomes of long-term, chronic fluctuations in blood glucose on other body systems. Some also mentioned that some persons with fluctuations in blood glucose experience symptoms and signs that are not covered by listings in other body systems. One commenter was concerned that our proposal to remove the DM listings might imply to our adjudicators that we want them to deny more cases involving DM. Another commenter believed that the proposed rules implied that persons with uncontrolled DM must be noncompliant with treatment. This commenter recommended that we include substantial guidance on the complexity of managing and controlling DM and guidance about how DM can intrude on the ability to work.
We are not including a listing for fluctuating blood glucose levels and the medical problems it causes because the reasons are highly variable, and we cannot provide criteria that would reliably identify persons with listing-level impairments based on fluctuating blood glucose levels. In order to determine whether persons with fluctuating blood glucose levels are disabled, we must assess an adult's RFC or consider functional equivalence for a child. In making these findings, we consider the symptoms and signs of DM that the commenters named. We also have listings in other body systems for several of the serious effects of uncontrolled DM cited in the comment letters. For example, we evaluate diabetic nephropathy under our genitourinary listings (6.00 and 106.00), and peripheral neuropathies under our listings for neurological disorders (11.00 and 111.00).
Nevertheless, in response to these and other comments, we have added more guidance in final 9.00B5 and 109.00B5 explaining that DM is chronic and that some persons with type 1 and type 2 DM do not achieve good control of their disorder for a variety of valid reasons. We also indicate that both type 1 and type 2 DM can have serious, disabling complications that meet the duration
We also indicated in the NPRM that we would publish a Social Security Ruling (SSR) with more detailed information about specific endocrine disorders, including DM, the types of impairments and limitations that result from these disorders, and how we determine whether persons who have DM and other endocrine disorders are disabled.
• Medical experts in the field of endocrinology, experts in other related fields, advocacy groups for persons with DM, and persons with endocrine disorders and their families;
• Persons who make disability determinations and decisions for us in State agencies and in our Office of Disability Adjudication and Review; and
• The published sources we listed in the section of references at the end of the preamble. We listed 13 references in the NPRM, most of which were specifically about DM. We provided Internet links for as many of the references as possible and informed the public that we would make all of the references available to anyone who was interested in seeing them.
We also explained that we received information from public comments that responded to an ANPRM that we published in the
We appreciated the opportunity to consider the articles the second commenter cited, but the endocrinologists, diabetologists, and other medical experts we consulted and our review of medical literature did not support the view that there is “brittle” DM. We believe that the sources we cited in the NPRM, together with the wide variety of other information we also described, represent the prevailing opinion of experts in the medical community and provide a balance of opinions.
As we explained in the NPRM and in our response to the comments above, the criteria in prior listing 9.08B reflected the earlier view that persons with wide fluctuations in their blood glucose levels had uncontrollable DM. According to the medical experts and relevant references we consulted, however, the listing reflected only inadequate glucose regulation. Prior listing 9.08B, therefore, included conditions that would not be disabling. With respect to keeping all of listing 9.08, we explained in the NPRM that prior listings 9.08A and C were redundant because we have other listings that address the effects they cover.
We also do not agree that adjudicators and medical experts think that claimants with diabetic neuropathy must have an amputation before we find them disabled. To the contrary, prior listing 9.08A cross-referred to listing 11.04B, which does not contain a criterion for amputation. Rather, that listing requires significant and persistent disorganization of motor function in two extremities, so it clearly includes persons who have not had amputations. We also provide in 11.00C that persistent disorganization of motor function may manifest as paresis, sensory disturbances, or other causes. These final rules do not affect the neurological body system, so current 11.00C and listing 11.04B will still be applicable to persons with diabetic neuropathy.
Finally, as one commenter noted, diabetic neuropathy can affect different parts of the body. We provide general guidance in final 9.00B for evaluating impairments that result from endocrine disorders under the listings for other body systems. We provide examples in 9.00B5a(ii) regarding evaluation of diabetic peripheral neurovascular disease that results in amputation under 1.00, diabetic gastroparesis that results in abnormal gastrointestinal motility under 5.00, and diabetic peripheral and sensory neuropathies under 11.00. This guidance indicates that we are not limited to any specific body system or listing in evaluating the complications of DM. We will also address diabetic neuropathies in the SSR we are preparing.
We recognize that not all children age 6 and older are capable of managing their own DM. In these children, however, the mere need for adult supervision does not establish disability; we need to determine the nature, frequency, and extent of the supervision they need along with any other relevant factors. Final listing 109.08 presumes that children under age 6 cannot participate in their own care at the most basic level and are at risk of dying unless they have 24-hour-a-day adult supervision. Many children age 6 and older with DM that requires daily insulin participate in their own care at least at the basic level of alerting adults when they begin to experience hypoglycemia symptoms, and they often participate at higher levels.
We agree, however, with the commenters that there are some children, including some adolescents, who have a medical need for 24-hour-a-day supervision; we must evaluate their DM on a more individualized basis. We stated in the NPRM that we would find such children disabled based on the example of functional equivalence in § 416.926a(m)(5). We also said that we expected there would be other children who do not need this level of help but who would nevertheless have impairments that functionally equal the listings for other
We stated in the NPRM that, if we published the proposed rules as final rules, the rules would remain in effect for 8 years after the date they become effective, unless we extend them or revise and reissue them. In these final rules, we are revising the 8-year sunset date to 5 years to conform to the timeframes we provide in most of our recent listings revisions.
We are also making minor editorial changes to correct unintentional inconsistencies between 9.00 and 109.00.
Under the Act, we have full power and authority to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary or appropriate procedures to carry out such provisions. Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1).
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these final rules meet the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 and were subject to OMB review.
We certify that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old Age, Public assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending 20 CFR part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
(c)
(3) In most cases, the specific listings follow the introduction in each body system, after the heading,
The revisions read as follows:
10. Endocrine Disorders (9.00 and 109.00): June 7, 2016.
A.
An endocrine disorder is a medical condition that causes a hormonal imbalance. When an endocrine gland functions abnormally, producing either too much of a specific hormone (hyperfunction) or too little (hypofunction), the hormonal imbalance can cause various complications in the body. The major glands of the endocrine system are the pituitary, thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal, and pancreas.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.
(i)
(ii)
b.
C.
A.
An endocrine disorder is a medical condition that causes a hormonal imbalance. When an endocrine gland functions abnormally, producing either too much of a specific hormone (hyperfunction) or too little (hypofunction), the hormonal imbalance can cause various complications in the body. The major glands of the endocrine system are the pituitary, thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal, and pancreas.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.
b.
c.
C.
Listing 109.08 is only for children with DM who have not attained age 6 and who require daily insulin. For all other children (that is, children with DM who are age 6 or older and require daily insulin, and children of any age with DM who do not require daily insulin), we follow our rules for determining whether the DM is severe, alone or in combination with another impairment, whether it meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing in another body system, or functionally equals the listings under the criteria in § 416.926a, considering the factors in § 416.924a. The management of DM in children can be complex and variable from day to day, and all children with DM require some level of adult supervision. For example, if a child age 6 or older has a medical need for 24-hour-a-day adult supervision of insulin treatment, food intake, and physical activity to ensure survival, we will find that the child's impairment functionally equals the listings based on the example in § 416.926a(m)(5).
D.
109.01
109.08
Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p) and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).
(c)
(3) In most cases, the specific listings follow the introduction in each body system, after the heading,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Saugus River, Lynn, Massachusetts, within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston Zone to allow for repair of high voltage transmission lines to Logan Airport. This safety zone is required to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the repair of high voltage transmission lines. Entering into, transiting through, mooring or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP.
This rule is effective from May 9, 2011 to October 5, 2011. This rule will be enforced during a consecutive 48 hour period to begin each day at 9 a.m. and end at 2 p.m. with notice of the enforcement of this safety zone to be made by all means to affect the widest publicity among the affected segments of the public, including publication of a Notice of Enforcement in the
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0992 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or e-mail MST1 David Labadie of the Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston; telephone 617-223-3010, e-mail
On January 26, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled: Safety Zone; Repair of High Voltage Transmission Lines to Logan International Airport, Saugus River, Saugus, Massachusetts, in the
This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and workers from the hazards associated with work related to repairs of high voltage transmission lines over navigable waters. This temporary safety zone will be in effect during the repair of the high voltage transmission lines that feed Logan Airport. The safety zone will be enforced immediately before, during and after the start of the repairs. National Grid, the transmission line repair company has not specified the exact date repairs will commence, but they have advised the Coast Guard that repairs are planned for a 48 hour period in May, 2011, to begin each day at 9 a.m. and end at 2 p.m.
The COTP will inform the public regarding the exact repair dates and details of the work covered by this safety zone using a variety of means, including, but not limited to, Notice of Enforcement (NOE) to be published in the
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Boston or the designated on-scene representative. Entering into, transiting through, mooring or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Boston or the designated on scene representative. The COTP or the designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or by telephone at (617) 223-5750.
We received no comments. A change has been made to this rule regarding how the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement period. We published a NPRM entitled: Safety Zone; Repair of High Voltage Transmission Lines to Logan International Airport, Saugus River, Saugus, Massachusetts, in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Coast Guard determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be of limited duration, is located in a waterway that has no deep draft commercial traffic and is designed to avoid, to the extent possible, fishing and recreational boating traffic routes. Persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if they obtain permission from the COTP or the designated representative.
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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, moor or anchor in a portion of the Saugus River during a 48 hour enforcement period related to repairs of high voltage transmission lines to Logan Airport.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: National Grid intends to make repairs to the high voltage transmission lines running to Logan Airport during a 48 hour period between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. This time window will allow the local lobster fishing fleet to transit to the fishing grounds and return home at night with only minor inconvenience. The local harbormasters have notified their tenants in advance of the intended repairs, thus allowing Saugus River users to plan accordingly. Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone prior to 9 a.m. and after 2 p.m. and if
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact ST1 David Labadie at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). We did not receive any comments for this section.
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. We did not receive any comments for this section.
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. We did not receive any comments for this section.
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. We did not receive any comments for this section.
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 did not receive any comments for this section.
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. We did not receive any comments for this section.
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 did not receive any comments for this section.
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. We did not receive any comments for this section.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. We did not receive any comments for this section.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 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(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) Repair of high voltage transmission lines to Logan International Airport; Saugus River, Saugus, MA.
(i) All waters of the Saugus River, from surface to bottom, within a 250-yard radius of position 42°26′ 42″ N; 070°58′ 14″ W.
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1) In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Boston, or his designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP Boston or the designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Boston is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Boston to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The COTP or the designated on scene representative may be contacted by telephone at 617-223-5750 or on VHF Channel 16.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may do so if they obtain permission from the COTP or the designated representative by contacting the COTP Sector Boston by telephone at 617-223-5750 or VHF radio channel 16.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation replaces the established tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on sweet corn, grain with corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed and reduces the established tolerance for residues of glyphosate and
This regulation is effective April 8, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 7, 2011, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0988. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Kable Bo Davis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 306-0415; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those engaged in the following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0988 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 7, 2011. Addresses for mail
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0988, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is revising the requested actions in several respects. EPA has concluded that a tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed should be set at 3.5 ppm, not 3.0 ppm. Since the proposed forage tolerance is less than the currently established tolerance for this commodity, EPA has concluded that a revision to the currently established forage tolerance is unnecessary. EPA is also modifying the tolerance expression for 40 CFR 180.364(a)(1) and (a)(2) to clarify the coverage of the tolerance and the compounds to be measured in determining compliance with tolerance levels. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *”
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for glyphosate including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with glyphosate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Glyphosate is of low acute toxicity following oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, slight skin irritant, and is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs. Inhalation risk assessments are not required based on the low toxicity of the formulation products (toxicity category III or IV) and the physical characteristics of the technical product. An acute dose and endpoint for assessing acute risk have not been selected for any population subgroups because no effect that could be attributed to a single exposure (dose) was observed in oral toxicity studies including the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.
A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology). In a second chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats tested at higher dietary levels, a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was identified at 940-milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) & 1,183-mg/kg/day (male/female) based on decreased body-weight gains in females and increased incidence of cataracts and lens abnormalities, decreased urinary pH, increased absolute liver weight, and increased relative liver weight/brain weight in males. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in rats or mice. In a chronic toxicity study in dogs, no systemic effects were found.
Acceptable developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit are available, as is an acceptable 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. No significant reproductive and developmental toxic effects were found. A focal tubular dilation of the kidneys was observed in a 3-generation reproductive study on rats at the 30-mg/kg/day high dose treatment level (HDTL), however a 2-generational reproductive study on rats did not observe the same effect at the 1,500-mg/kg/day HDTL, nor were any adverse reproductive effects observed at any dose level. EPA concluded that the focal tubular dilation of the kidneys at the 30-mg/kg/day level was a spurious rather than a glyphosate-related effect.
In a prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, maternal (systemic) effects observed included mortality, increased clinical signs, and reduced body-weight gain at the HDTL (3,500-mg/kg/day). Developmental (fetal) effects were observed only in the high-dose group
Neurotoxicity has not been observed in any of the acute, subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive studies performed with glyphosate.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by glyphosate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL the LOAEL. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) (a = acute c = chronic) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for glyphosate used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for glyphosate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
The sweet corn use is not anticipated to result in residential exposure. However, residential exposure is anticipated from the registered broadcast and spot treatment to residential lawns, gardens, and recreational areas including parks and golf courses. Based on the registered residential use patterns, there is a potential for short-term and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation exposures to homeowners who mix and apply products containing glyphosate. Since short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation endpoints were not selected, no residential handler/applicator exposure assessment was conducted. Post-application dermal and inhalation exposure assessments were not conducted since short- and intermediate-term dermal and inhalation endpoints were not selected. Based on registered use patterns, toddlers may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposure from hand-to-mouth, object to mouth, and soil ingestion behavior on treated lawns and swimmers may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from treated surface water. Exposures and risks from these scenarios were assessed because an applicable endpoint was identified. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
EPA has not found glyphosate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and glyphosate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that glyphosate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database is complete with the exception of recently-required studies on acute and subchronic neuorotoxicity and immunotoxicity. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in any of the toxicology studies. Accordingly, although an acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are now required as part of new data requirements, EPA does not believe that conducting these studies will result in a lower POD than that currently used for overall risk assessment, and therefore, a database uncertainty factor is not needed to account for lack of these studies.
ii. The toxicology database for glyphosate does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. The overall weight of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the immune system. Accordingly, although an immunotoxicity study is required as a part of the new data requirements in the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide registration, EPA does not believe that conducting a functional immunotoxicity study will result in a lower POD than that currently use for overall risk assessment, and therefore, a data base uncertainty factor is not needed to account for lack of this study.
iii. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbit fetuses to
iv. The dietary exposure analysis of exposure to glyphosate in food is conservative as it assumed tolerance level residues and 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the water modeling used to assess exposure to glyphosate in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Glyphosate is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to glyphosate.
Short-term incidental oral exposure may occur to young children (swimmer and turf non-dietary ingestion) and adults (swimmers). For young children, short-term aggregate exposure includes chronic dietary (food and water) and incidental oral ingestion exposure resulting from the turf use (highest exposure of all possible scenarios). For adults, short-term aggregate exposure includes chronic dietary exposure (food and water) and incidental oral ingestion exposure resulting from the aquatic use (highest exposure of all possible scenarios). See Table 6.0.1 in the document titled “Glyphosate. Section 3 Registration for Application of the Potassium Salt of Glyphosate to Glyphosate-Tolerant Sweet Corn. Human-Health Risk Assessment” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0988 for a summary of the short-term aggregate exposures and risk estimates (the populations included represent those with the highest dietary exposures). For glyphosate, the LOC is for MOEs below 100. Since the aggregate MOEs are ≥720, short-term aggregate exposure to glyphosate does not pose a risk of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) equipped with a fluorescence detector method; LOQ = 0.05 ppm) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established any MRLs for sweet corn commodities; however, it has established an MRL for residues of glyphosate, per se, in/on poultry, meat at 0.05 ppm. The U.S. tolerance of 0.10 ppm for poultry, meat is necessarily higher than the Codex MRL to account for residues of both gyphosate and its metabolite N-acetyl glyphosate. N-acetyl glyphosate is found in genetically modified (GMO) glyphosate-resistant commodities, including corn and soybeans; that are used as feed items for poultry in the U.S. Therefore, it is included in the U.S. tolerance expression for poultry but not the Codex expression, accounting for the difference in the established MRLs.
EPA has concluded that a tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 3.5 ppm is needed because the highest residue from the field trials was 3.1 ppm. Since the proposed forage tolerance (9 ppm) is less than the currently established tolerance for this commodity (100 ppm), EPA has concluded that a revision to the currently established tolerance is unnecessary.
Finally, EPA is revising the tolerance expressions in 40 CFR 180.364(a)(1) and 40 CFR 180.364(a)(2) to clarify the chemical moieties that are covered by the tolerances and specify clearly how compliance with the tolerances is to be measured.
Therefore this regulation changes the established tolerance for residues of glyphosate in or on corn, sweet, grain (at 0.1 ppm) to 3.5 ppm for residues of glyphosate in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with the husk removed. This regulation reduces the established tolerance for residues of glyphosate and
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
i. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (a)(1), and in the table, revise the entry for corn, sweet, grain 0.1 ppm; to corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 3.5 ppm; and
ii. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (a)(2), and in the table, revise the entry for poultry, meat 4.0 ppm to 0.10 ppm. The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of glyphosate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed below resulting from the application of glyphosate, the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate, the ethanolamine salt of glyphosate, the dimethylamine salt of glyphosate, the ammonium salt of glyphosate, and the potassium salt of glyphosate. Compliance with the following tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only glyphosate (
Federal Maritime Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Maritime Commission is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective April 18, 2011.
In FR Doc. 2011-4599 appearing in the
“(c) Be agreed to by both NRA shipper and NVOCC, prior to receipt of cargo by the common carrier or its agent (including originating carriers in the case of through transportation);”
“An NVOCC wishing to invoke an exemption pursuant to this part must indicate that intention to the Commission and to the public by a prominent notice in its rules tariff and bills of lading or equivalent shipping documents.”
By the Commission.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This final rule delegates various authorities vested in the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) by Executive Order 13526 to originally classify information as SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and to the Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials.
This final rule is effective April 8, 2011.
Brett Jortland, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, E-mail:
Executive Order 13526 confers upon the Secretary the authority to originally classify information as SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL, with further authorization to designate this authority. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 8.11(b)(3) delegates this authority to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security. As a result of administrative changes within the FAA, the position of the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security no longer exists. The authority exercised by that position has been transferred to the Assistant Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials, thus necessitating a change in the language of § 8.11(b)(3) to reflect the proper office for designation of this authority.
In addition, following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the transfer of the United States Coast Guard from DOT to the Department of Homeland Security, the delegation of authority from the Secretary to the United States Coast Guard is hereby removed and the section is renumbered accordingly.
Since these amendments relate to departmental management, organization, procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Further, since these amendments expedite DOT's ability to meet the statutory intent of the applicable laws and regulations covered by this delegation, the Secretary finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the final rule to be effective on the date of publication in the
The final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian Tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
DOT has determined that the requirements of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531) do not apply to this rulemaking.
Classified Information (Government agencies), Classification/Declassification/Access (Government agencies).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OST amends 49 CFR part 8 as follows:
E. O. 10450, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 936; E.O. 12829, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 570; E.O. 12958, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333; E. O. 12968, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 391.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; interpretation.
This interpretation clarifies regulations that apply to vessels operating in the guided sport (charter) fishery for halibut in International Pacific Halibut Commission Management Area 2C (Southeast Alaska) and Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). Under regulations implementing the charter halibut limited access program, all vessel operators in Area 2C and Area 3A with charter vessel anglers on board catching and retaining halibut must have a valid charter halibut permit that was issued by NMFS on board the vessel. This interpretation clarifies that a valid charter halibut permit must be on board a vessel when the charter vessel guide on board is being compensated to provide assistance to persons catching and retaining halibut. A charter vessel guide is not required to have a charter halibut permit on board a vessel during a recreational halibut fishing trip on which he or she is not being compensated to provide assistance to persons catching and retaining halibut.
This rule is effective on April 8, 2011.
Electronic copies of this action and other related documents are available from
Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (
In March 2007, the Council recommended a limited access program for charter vessels in IPHC Regulatory Area 2C and Area 3A. The intent of the program was to manage growth of fishing capacity in the charter sector by limiting the number of charter vessels that may participate in the guided sport fishery for halibut in Areas 2C and 3A. NMFS published a final rule implementing the program on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554). Under the program, NMFS initially issued a charter halibut permit (CHP) to qualified applicants. A person who was not initially issued a CHP by NMFS may obtain a transferable CHP from another person by submitting a transfer application and meeting CHP transfer requirements. A permit holder may use a CHP on board any vessel that meets Federal and State requirements to operate as a charter vessel in the guided sport fishery for halibut in Areas 2C and 3A.
Beginning February 1, 2011, any person operating a vessel on which charter vessel anglers are catching and retaining halibut in Area 2C or Area 3A is required to have on board the vessel a CHP designated for that area. This requirement is codified in the regulations as a prohibition. The regulation at § 300.66(r) prohibits a person from being an operator of a vessel in Area 2C or Area 3A with one or more charter vessel anglers on board that are catching and retaining halibut without having a valid CHP for the regulatory area in which the vessel is operating.
This interpretation clarifies that a CHP is required to be on board a vessel in Area 2C or Area 3A if both of the following conditions are met: (1) One or more persons on board are catching and retaining halibut, and (2) a charter vessel guide on board the vessel is receiving compensation to assist a person to take, or attempt to take, halibut.
Regulations at § 300.61 include three definitions that are relevant for determining whether a CHP is required to be on board a vessel in Area 2C or Area 3A. These definitions are “charter vessel angler,” “charter vessel guide,” and “sport fishing guide services.” For purposes of regulations at §§ 300.65(d), 300.66, and 300.67:
1. “Charter vessel angler” means a person, paying or non-paying, using the services of the charter vessel guide.
2. “Charter vessel guide” means a person who holds an annual sport guide license issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or a person who provides sport fishing guide services.
3. “Sport fishing guide services” means assistance, for compensation, to a person who is sport fishing, to take or attempt to take fish by being on board a vessel with such person during any part of a charter vessel fishing trip.
NMFS interprets “services” in the definition of “charter vessel angler” to mean “sport fishing guide services” as defined at § 300.61. Under this interpretation, a person who takes or attempts to take halibut would only be
Compensation is generally defined as something given or received as payment or remuneration, as for a service. For purposes of the definition of “sport fishing guide services” at § 300.61, compensation is not strictly limited to a monetary exchange and can include a trade of goods or services in exchange for taking someone fishing. Therefore, assistance for compensation is not limited to situations where persons are directly compensating someone for sport fishing guide services. The definition of “sport fishing guide services” at § 300.61 does not require any person on board the vessel to be individually compensating the person providing assistance for this definition to be applicable. If the charter vessel guide is compensated in any way to provide assistance, then that charter vessel guide is providing sport fishing guide services under § 300.61.
NMFS recognizes that compensation for assistance can take many forms. For purposes of applying the regulations at §§ 300.61, 300.66, and 300.67, NMFS will evaluate the specific circumstances of a fishing trip to determine if a charter vessel guide is receiving compensation for providing persons with assistance to take or attempt to take halibut.
NMFS did not intend for a charter vessel guide's recreational fishing activities in Area 2C and Area 3A to be restricted by the charter halibut limited access program regulations. This interpretation clarifies that the regulation at § 300.66(r) does not require a person holding an annual sport guide license issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, defined as a charter vessel guide at § 300.61, to have a CHP on board the vessel for recreational fishing trips that are not undertaken as part of charter halibut business operations. For example, NMFS recognizes that while a charter vessel guide on board a vessel with friends or family may offer his or her expertise to assist those persons to catch and retain halibut, the charter vessel guide may not be compensated for providing such assistance. Thus, if the charter vessel guide is not compensated for providing sport fishing guide services, as defined at § 300.61, the persons on board the vessel are not charter vessel anglers as defined at § 300.61. If the persons on board are not charter vessel anglers, the fishing trip would not be considered a charter vessel fishing trip.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this interpretation is consistent with the Halibut Act and other applicable law.
This action is administrative in nature and is exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NAO 216-6 because this interpretive rule will have no effect on the environment.
This interpretive rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The notice and comment requirements and the 30-day delay in the effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply to this interpretive rule as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).
16 U.S.C. 773
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document contains a correction to the Request for Comments titled “Tobacco Transition Payment Program; Cigar and Cigarette Per Unit Assessments,” which was published March 22, 2011. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is correcting an inaccurate statement about the possible consequences of an alternative assessment methodology.
We will consider comments that we receive by May 23, 2011.
We invite you to submit comments on the Request for Comments, as corrected by this document. In your comment, please specify RIN 0560-AI12 and include the volume, date, and page number (March 22, 2011, 76 FR 15859-15864) of the issue of the
•
•
Comments may be inspected at the above address, in room 3722, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Jane Reed; phone: (202) 720-6782. Persons with disabilities or who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape,
On March 22, 2011, CCC published a Request for Comments (76 FR 15859-15864) requesting comments about the calculation of assessments to fund the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP) as authorized by the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 (FETRA) (7 U.S.C. 518-519a). CCC needs to correct the information in the Request for Comments to remove inadvertently inaccurate estimates of the impact of an alternative cigar assessment methodology.
The Request for Comments on page 15864, in the first column, contained a paragraph that stated that the possible impact of one alternative might have been a twelve-fold increase with respect to large cigars for 2010, and that the effect of this might have even been greater for previous years because of a recent change in product mix. That paragraph reads as follows:
The estimate of the impact of the alternative method is inaccurate; an error was made in the calculations on which this paragraph was based. A recalculation was made using 2006 data. The recalculation demonstrated that had the alternative methodology been in use in 2006, the alternative methodology would have increased the large cigar assessment by roughly 80 percent, not twelve-fold, and would have decreased the small cigars assessment (as “small cigars” are defined for the purposes of excise taxes) by roughly 95 percent. For 2010, it is estimated that there would have been only a slight change in the large cigar assessment if cigar categories were broken out separately at the Step A level. Therefore, this document corrects the Request for Comments by removing the paragraph quoted above that contains the inaccurate estimate of impact.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Model 757 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD would require actions that were provided previously as optional actions, and would require a certain initial inspection to be accomplished for a revised AWL. This proposed AD results from a report that an AWL required by the existing AD must be revised. We are proposing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On April 29, 2008, we issued AD 2008-10-11, amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008), for all Model 757 series airplanes. That AD requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That AD also requires the initial inspection of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. That AD resulted from a design review of the fuel tank systems. We issued that AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2008-10-11, we received a report from the manufacturer that AWL No. 28-AWL-03, as specified in Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-008, dated March 2008, contained incorrect information. Boeing TR 09-008 was published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2008, and was referenced by AD 2008-10-11. Use of that AWL may result in not detecting defects in the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wiring shield. Boeing issued Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, which was published as Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision July 2010. That document also revises other AWLs referenced by AD 2008-10-11.
Since we issued that AD, we have also determined that it is necessary to clarify the AD's intended effect on spare and on-airplane fuel tank system components, regarding the use of maintenance manuals and instructions for continued airworthiness.
Section 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)) specifies the following:
No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitation section unless the mandatory * * * procedures * * * have been complied with.
Some operators have questioned whether existing components affected by the new CDCCLs must be reworked. We did not intend for the AD to retroactively require rework of components that had been maintained using acceptable methods before the effective date of the AD. Owners and operators of the affected airplanes therefore are not required to rework affected components identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before the required revisions of the maintenance program. But once the CDCCLs are incorporated into the maintenance program, future maintenance actions on components must be done in accordance with those CDCCLs.
AD 2008-10-11 allowed the inclusion of AWLs No. 28-AWL-25 and 28-AWL-26 as an optional action. We have determined that those AWLs must be required. We have added that requirement in paragraph (l) of this proposed AD to require those AWLs and paragraphs (n) and (o) of this proposed AD to clarify the required compliance times for those AWLs.
We have removed the “Service Information” reference paragraph from this proposed AD. That paragraph was identified as paragraph (f) in AD 2008-10-11. Instead, we have provided the full service information citations throughout this NPRM.
AD 2008-10-11 allowed the use of alternative inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs if they are part of a later revision of Boeing TR 09-008, dated
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2008-10-11 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD with revised service information. This proposed AD would also require actions that were previously provided as optional actions in the existing AD.
There are about 990 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-15517 (73 FR 25974, May 8, 2008) and adding the following new AD:
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 23, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-10-11, Amendment 39-15517. Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements of AD 2008-11-07, Amendment 39-15529; AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415; and AD 2009-06-20, Amendment 39-15857.
(c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
(e) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank systems. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel
(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) Before December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) by incorporating the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD into the MPD; except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Subsection E, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Boeing Temporary Revision (TR) 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622N001-9.
(2) Subsection F, “PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9.
(3) Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-24 inclusive, of Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-25 and No. 28-AWL-26, as identified in Subsection G of Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, also may be incorporated into the AWLs section of the ICA.
(h) Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD at the compliance time identified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Subsection G of Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, or Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the inspections identified in Table 1 of this AD as part of a maintenance program before the applicable compliance time specified in Table 1 of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622N001-9, may be used.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.”
(i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD.
(j) Actions done before June 12, 2008, in accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision March 2006; Revision October 2006; Revision January 2007; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
(k) Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 into the AWLs section of the ICA in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this AD or the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) of this AD terminates the action required by paragraph (h)(2) of AD 2008-06-03. After the effective date of this AD, only paragraph (l)(3) of this AD may be used.
(l) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program by incorporating the information in the subsections specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this AD. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) Subsection E, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9.
(2) Subsection F, “PAGE FORMAT: FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9.
(3) Subsection G, “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-26 inclusive, of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9.
(m) The initial compliance time for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, is within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
(n) The initial inspection compliance time for AWL No. 28-AWL-25 of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, is within 72 months after accomplishing Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0088.
(o) The initial inspection compliance time for AWL No. 28-AWL-26 of Boeing TR 09-010, dated July 2010, to Section 9 of Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, is within 12 months after accomplishing Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0105.
(p) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (u) of this AD.
(q) Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 and No. 28-AWL-26 into the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (j) and (m) of AD 2008-11-07.
(r) Incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-22 into the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) of this AD terminates the actions required by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-06-20.
(s) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, Revision December 2008, is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(t) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Subsection G of Boeing TR 09-008, dated March 2008, to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document, D622N001-9, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (n) and (o) of this AD.
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the maintenance program, as required by paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the maintenance program has been revised, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.
(u)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2008-10-11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(v) For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6499; fax: 425-917-6590; e-mail:
(w) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; e-mail
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Results from a design review done by AIRBUS for documentation update have revealed that, on post-mod 38310 A320 aeroplanes only, in case of emergency electrical configuration combined with a Green and Yellow hydraulic system loss, during landing phase (nose landing gear extended), the roll control would only be provided by the left aileron.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetrical landing configuration, resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1405; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0149, dated July 21, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
In 2007, Airbus modification 38310 was introduced in production to simplify the ELAC2 [elevator aileron computer] and Trimmable Horizontal Stabiliser (THS) Motor 1 stand by power supply logic.
Results from a design review done by AIRBUS for documentation update have revealed that, on post-mod 38310 A320 aeroplanes only, in case of emergency electrical configuration combined with a Green and Yellow hydraulic system loss, during landing phase (nose landing gear extended), the roll control would only be provided by the left aileron.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetrical landing configuration, resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a modification of the electrical installation of ELAC2 and THS Motor 1 power supply, restoring the aeroplane to the pre-mod 38310 configuration.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27-1199, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated September 20, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 666 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 35 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,370 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,225,770, or $6,345 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-214, -232, and -233 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 38310 has been accomplished in production; certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight Controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Results from a design review done by AIRBUS for documentation update have revealed that, on post-mod 38310 A320 aeroplanes only, in case of emergency electrical configuration combined with a Green and Yellow hydraulic system loss, during landing phase (nose landing gear extended), the roll control would only be provided by the left aileron.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetrical landing configuration, resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the electrical installation of the elevator aileron computer and trimmable horizontal stabilizer motor 1 power supply, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27-1199, Revision 02, dated September 20, 2010.
(h) Modifications done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1199, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2010, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0149, dated July 21, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-27-1199, Revision 02, dated September 20, 2010; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
* * * BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has issued Revision 33 of the AMM [airplane maintenance manual] to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by adding one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing the repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with this revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On April 27, 2009, we issued AD 2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR 21246, May 7, 2009). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2009-10-02, we have determined that new or more restrictive limitations are necessary to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Airworthiness Directive 2010-0098, dated May 27, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The Jetstream J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), includes thefollowing chapters:
Compliance with these chapters has been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness and EASA AD 2009-0052 was issued to require operators to comply with those instructions.
Since the issuance of that AD, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has issued Revision 33 of the AMM to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by adding one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing the repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with this revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes EASA AD 2009-0052, requires the implementation of the new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in the defined parts of Chapter 05 of the AMM at Revision 33.
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Subjects 05-10-00, 05-10-10, 05-10-20, and 05-10-30 of Chapter 05 of Jetstream Series 4100 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 3 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2009-10-02 and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $85 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 1 additional work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15897 (74 FR 21246, May 7, 2009) and adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-10-02, Amendment 39-15897.
(c) This AD applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
* * * BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has issued Revision 33 of the AMM [airplane maintenance manual] to amend Chapter 05-10-10 by adding one new Structurally Significant Item (SSI) and increasing the repeat inspection period on another SSI. Failure to comply with this revision constitutes an unsafe condition.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 90 days after June 11, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-10-02): Revise the AWL section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the instructions of Subjects 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations,” 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” and 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System,” of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), Revision 31, dated February 15, 2009. Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative replacement times or inspection intervals may be approved for any affected component. Doing the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(h) Where paragraph 2.A.(2) of Subject 05-10-10 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 31, dated February 15, 2009, specifies that certain landing gear units “must be removed before 31st March 2008,” this AD requires compliance within 60 days after June 11, 2009.
(i) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating Subject 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation”; Subject 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements Description and Operation”; and Subject 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System Description and Operation”; of Chapter 05 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD.
(1) For replacement tasks of life limited parts specified in Subject 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” of Chapter 05 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010: Prior to the applicable flight cycles (landings) or flight hours (flying hours) on the part specified in the “Mandatory Life Limits” column in Subject 05-10-10, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For structurally significant item tasks specified in Subject 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” of Chapter 05 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010: Prior to the accumulation of the applicable flight cycles specified in the “Initial Inspection” column in Subject 05-10-10, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) For certification maintenance requirements tasks specified in Subject 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements Description and Operation,” of Chapter 05 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010: Prior to the accumulation of the applicable flight hours specified in the “Time Between Checks” column in Subject 05-10-20, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; except for tasks that specify “first flight of the day” in the “Time Between Checks” column in Subject 05-10-20, the initial compliance time is the first flight of the next day after doing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(j) After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Although EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0098, dated May 27, 2010, specifies both revising the maintenance program to include limitations, and doing certain repetitive actions (
(k) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(l) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0098, dated May 27, 2010; Subjects 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations,” 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” and 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System,” of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 31, dated February 15, 2009; and Subjects 05-10-00, “Time Limits Description and Operation,” 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” 05-10-20, “Certification Maintenance Requirements Description and Operation,” and 05-10-30, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)—Fuel System Description and Operation,” of Chapter 05 of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Jetstream Series 4100 AMM, Revision 33, dated February 15, 2010; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
A report has been received of an incident where one of the two bolts attaching the actuator mounting bracket to the MLG [main landing gear] Shock Strut was found loose, leading to failure of the other attachment bolt, subsequently resulting in failure of the bracket.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the MLG to extend to the full down-and-locked position, possibly resulting in MLG collapse upon landing or during roll-out, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1112; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0069, dated April 14, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A report has been received of an incident where one of the two bolts attaching the actuator mounting bracket to the MLG Shock Strut was found loose, leading to failure of the other attachment bolt, subsequently resulting in failure of the bracket.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the MLG to extend to the full down-and-locked position, possibly resulting in MLG collapse upon landing or during roll-out, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To correct this potentially unsafe condition, SAAB has published Service Bulletin (SB) 2000-32-073, describing a [detailed] inspection of the attachment bolts [and nuts] to detect any loose bolts [and nuts], follow-up corrective action(s), depending on findings, and the installation of the correct number of washers.
For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the accomplishment of the actions described in SAAB SB 2000-32-073.
Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 8 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,039 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 parts. 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,992, or $1,124 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $1,039, for a cost of $1,889 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000 airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing gear.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
A report has been received of an incident where one of the two bolts attaching the actuator mounting bracket to the MLG [main landing gear] Shock Strut was found loose, leading to failure of the other attachment bolt, subsequently resulting in failure of the bracket.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could prevent the MLG to extend to the full down-and-locked position, possibly resulting in MLG collapse upon landing or during roll-out, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for any loose top bolt and nut of the shock strut actuator mounting bracket of both the left-hand and right-hand main landing gear (MLG), in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009.
(h) If any loose bolt or nut is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the bolt with a new bolt and accomplish paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009.
(1) Do a detailed inspection of the bottom bolts for uniform or fretting corrosion. If any corrosion is found, before further flight, accomplish all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009.
(2) Do a detailed inspection for damage, cracks, and other signs of deterioration of the actuator mounting bracket and shock strut. If signs of damage, cracks, or other signs of deterioration are found on the actuator mounting bracket or the shock strut, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent).
(i) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD, install the correct number of washers for both the top and bottom bolts of the shock strut actuator mounting bracket of both MLG, in accordance with paragraph 2.C.of the Accomplishment Instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009.
(j) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, dated June 26, 2009, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:No differences.
(k) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(l) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0069, dated April 14, 2010; and Saab Service Bulletin 2000-32-073, Revision 01, dated October 20, 2009; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
During maintenance, it has been discovered that at the installation of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs an incorrect installation of the fixation brackets may have occurred. * * *
If the orientation of the fixation bracket is reversed or upside down the screws may not reach into the helicoil thread to a sufficient depth.
An incorrect installation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an in-flight failure of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs resulting in and reduced control of the aeroplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 328 Support Services GmbH, Global Support Center, P.O. Box 1252, D-82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone +49 8153 88111 6666; fax +49 8153 88111 6565; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0134, dated June 30, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During maintenance, it has been discovered that at the installation of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs an incorrect installation of the fixation brackets may have occurred. It is possible that the fixation bracket assembly may be incorrectly orientated and as a result the position of the helicoil inserts on the fixation bracket may be incorrect.
If the orientation of the fixation bracket is reversed or upside down the screws may not reach into the helicoil thread to a sufficient depth.
An incorrect installation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an in-flight failure of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs resulting in and reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, the TC [type certificate] holder has developed a one-time inspection to detect and correct any incorrect installations of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of all rudder trim- and spring tab fixation brackets, the correction of any parts that are incorrectly installed and the reporting of all findings to the TC holder. This AD is considered to be an interim action and an improved design bracket attachment is expected to be developed.
328 Support Services has issued Service Bulletins SB-328-55-493 (for Model 328-100 airplanes) and SB-328J-55-245 (for Model 328-300 airplanes), both dated April 21, 2010, both including a Compliance Report. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 55 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to 328 Support Services GmbH (Type Certificate previously held by AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55: Stabilizers.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
During maintenance, it has been discovered that at the installation of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs an incorrect installation of the fixation brackets may have occurred. * * *
If the orientation of the fixation bracket is reversed or upside down the screws may not reach into the helicoil thread to a sufficient depth.
An incorrect installation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an in-flight failure of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs resulting in and reduced control of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection to determine if the fixation brackets for the rudder spring tabs and trim tabs are installed correctly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB-328-55-493, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-100 airplanes); or SB-328J-55-245, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-300 airplanes).
(h) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any incorrect installation of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs is detected, before further flight, correct the installation of the fixation brackets for rudder spring tabs and trim tabs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB-328-55-493, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-100 airplanes); or SB-328J-55-245, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-300 airplanes).
(i) Within 30 days after the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Send the inspection report to 328 Support Services GmbH by using the Compliance Report attached to 328 Support Services Service Bulletin SB-328-55-493, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-100 airplanes); or SB-328J-55-245, dated April 21, 2010 (for Model 328-300 airplanes). Send the report by mail or fax to: Attention: Dept. C, 328 Support Services GmbH, Customer Services, P.O. Box 1252, D-82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany; fax +49 (0) 8153 88111-6565.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(k) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0134, dated June 30, 2010; and 328 Support Services Service Bulletins SB-328-55-493 and SB-328J-55-245, both dated April 21, 2010; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
A specific failure case of the THSA [trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator] upper primary attachment, which may result in a loading of the upper secondary attachment, has been identified by analysis.
Primary load path failure can be caused by bearing migration from the upper attachment gimbal by failure or loss of a retention bolt.
In case of failure of the THSA upper primary attachment, the THSA upper secondary attachment would engage. Because the upper attachment secondary load path can only withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition where it would be engaged could lead, if not detected, to the failure of the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0224, dated November 4, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A specific failure case of the THSA [trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator] upper primary attachment, which may result in a loading of the upper secondary attachment, has been identified by analysis.
Primary load path failure can be caused by bearing migration from the upper attachment gimbal by failure or loss of a retention bolt.
In case of failure of the THSA upper primary attachment, the THSA upper secondary attachment would engage. Because the upper attachment secondary load path can only withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition where it would be engaged could lead, if not detected, to the failure of the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons explained above, this AD requires installation of three secondary retention plates for the gimbal bearings on the THSA upper primary attachment.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-27-6066 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes) and A310-27-2103 (for Model A310 series
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect 215 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,021 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $722,615, or $3,361 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
A specific failure case of the THSA [trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator] upper primary attachment, which may result in a loading of the upper secondary attachment, has been identified by analysis.
Primary load path failure can be caused by bearing migration from the upper attachment gimbal by failure or loss of a retention bolt.
In case of failure of the THSA upper primary attachment, the THSA upper secondary attachment would engage. Because the upper attachment secondary load path can only withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition where it would be engaged could lead, if not detected, to the failure of the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of control of the aeroplane.
(f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(g) Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, install three retention plates on the THSA upper primary attachment, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-27-6066 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes) or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-27-2103 (for Model A310 series airplanes), both dated June 10, 2010.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0224, dated November 4, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-27-6066 and A310-27-2103, both dated June 10, 2010.
Office of Management, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations implementing section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act, which is also known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (FERPA). These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that the Department's implementation of FERPA continues to protect the privacy of education records, as intended by Congress, while allowing for the effective use of data in statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) as envisioned in the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES Act) and furthermore supported under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Improved access to data contained within an SLDS will facilitate States' ability to evaluate education programs, to build upon what works and discard what does not, to increase accountability and transparency, and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education. These proposed amendments would enable authorized representatives of State and local educational authorities, and organizations conducting studies, to use SLDS data to achieve these important outcomes while protecting privacy under FERPA through an expansion of the requirements for written agreements and the Department's enforcement mechanisms.
We must receive your comments on or before May 23, 2011. Comments received after this date will not be considered.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
The Department's policy for comments received from members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Ellen Campbell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-3887 or via Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, 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 these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed regulations.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing
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 or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under
With respect to public preschool through grade 12 and postsecondary education, COMPETES requires that the SLDS include: (a) A unique statewide student identifier that, by itself, does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system; (b) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information; (c) student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P-16 education programs; (d) the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems; and (e) a State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability.
With respect to public preschool through grade 12 education, COMPETES requires that the SLDS include: (a) Yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (b) information on students not tested by grade and subject; (c) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students; (d) student-level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; and (e) student-level college readiness test scores.
With respect to postsecondary education, COMPETES requires that the SLDS include: (a) Information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and (b) other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education.
Separate provisions in title VIII of the ARRA appropriated $250 million for additional grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) under the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program, authorized under section 208 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9601,
The extent of data sharing contemplated by these and other Federal initiatives prompted the Department to review the impact that its FERPA regulations could have on the development and use of SLDS. FERPA is a Federal law that protects student privacy by prohibiting educational agencies and institutions from having a practice or policy of disclosing personally identifiable information in student education records (“PII”) unless a parent or eligible student provides prior written consent or a statutory exception applies. In those circumstances in which educational agencies and institutions may disclose PII to third parties without consent, FERPA and its implementing regulations limit the redisclosure of PII by the recipients, except as set forth in §§ 99.33(c) and (d) and 99.35(c)(2) (
In light of the ARRA, the Department has conducted a review of its FERPA regulations in 34 CFR part 99, including changes reflected in the final regulations published on December 9, 2008 (73 FR 74806). Further, the Department has reviewed its guidance interpreting FERPA, including statements made in the preamble discussion to the final regulations published on December 9, 2008 (73 FR 74806).
Based on its review, the Department has determined that the Department's December 2008 changes to the FERPA regulations promote the development and expansion of robust SLDS in the following ways:
• Expanding the redisclosure authority in FERPA by amending § 99.35 to permit State and local educational authorities and other officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to make further disclosures of personally identifiable information from education records, without the consent of parents or eligible students, on behalf of the educational agency or institution from which the PII was obtained under specified conditions (
• Permitting SEAs and other State educational authorities, as well as the other officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3), to record their redisclosures at the time they are made and by groups (
Notwithstanding these provisions in the Department's FERPA regulations and the preamble discussion relating to the December 2008 changes to the regulations, the Department's review indicates that there are a small number of other regulatory provisions and policy statements that unnecessarily hinder the development and expansion of SLDS consistent with the ARRA. Because the Department has determined that these regulatory provisions and policies are not necessary to ensure privacy protections for PII, it proposes to amend 34 CFR part 99 to make the changes described in the following section.
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address proposed regulatory provisions that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.
In order to help ensure proper implementation of FERPA requirements that protect student privacy, we also propose to amend § 99.35 (What conditions apply to disclosure of information for Federal or State program purposes?). Specifically, we would provide, in proposed § 99.35(a)(2), that responsibility remains with the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to use reasonable methods to ensure that any entity designated as its authorized representative remains compliant with FERPA. We are not proposing to define “reasonable methods” in the proposed regulations in order to provide flexibility for a State or local educational authority or an agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to make these determinations. However, we are interested in receiving comments on what would be considered reasonable methods. The Department anticipates issuing non-regulatory guidance on this and other related matters when we issue the final regulations or soon thereafter.
We also would amend § 99.35 to require written agreements between a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) and its authorized representative, other than an employee (
We would propose a minor change to § 99.35(b) to clarify that the requirement to protect PII from disclosure applies to authorized representatives.
Finally, proposed § 99.35(d) would clarify that if the Department's Family Policy Compliance Office (FPCO) finds that a State or local educational authority, an agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), or an authorized representative of a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) improperly rediscloses PII in violation of FERPA, the educational agency or institution from which the PII originated would be prohibited from permitting the entity responsible for the improper redisclosure (
As explained in further detail in the following paragraphs, the Department has concluded that FERPA does not require that an authorized representative be under the educational authority's direct control in order to receive PII for purposes of audit or evaluation. We also do not believe such a restrictive interpretation is warranted given Congress' intent in the ARRA to have States link data across sectors. Through these regulations, therefore, we are proposing to rescind the policy established in the January 30, 2003, Hansen memorandum and the preamble to the final FERPA regulations published on December 9, 2008 (73 FR 74806, 74825). These proposed regulations also would expressly permit State and local educational authorities and other agencies headed by officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to exercise the flexibility and discretion to designate other individuals and entities, including other governmental agencies, as their authorized representatives for evaluation, audit, or legal enforcement or compliance purposes of a Federal or State-supported education program, subject to the requirements in FERPA and its implementing regulations.
We first note that nothing in FERPA prescribes which agencies, organizations, or individuals may serve as an authorized representative of a State or local educational authority or an agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), or whether an authorized representative must be a public or private entity or official. Moreover, the Department believes that it is unnecessarily restrictive to interpret FERPA as prohibiting an individual or entity who is not an employee or contractor under the “direct control” of a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) from serving as an authorized representative.
One of the key purposes of FERPA is to ensure the privacy of personally identifiable information in student education records. Therefore, the determination of who can serve as an authorized representative should be
• Be responsible for using reasonable methods to ensure that the designated individual or entity—
○ Uses PII only for purposes of the audit, evaluation, or compliance or enforcement activity in question;
○ Destroys or returns PII when no longer needed for these purposes; and
○ Protects PII from redisclosure (and use by any other third party), except as permitted in § 99.35(b)(1) (
• Use a written agreement that designates any authorized representative other than an employee and includes the privacy protections set forth in proposed § 99.35(a)(3) (
Furthermore, under proposed § 99.35(d), we would clarify that in the event that the Family Policy Compliance Office finds an improper redisclosure, the Department would prohibit the educational agency or institution from which the PII originated from permitting the party responsible for the improper redisclosure (
With these proposed changes to the privacy provisions in § 99.35, we believe that PII, including PII in SLDS, will be appropriately protected while giving each State the needed flexibility to house information in a SLDS that best meets the needs of the particular State. FERPA does not constrain State administrative choices regarding the data system architecture, data strategy, or technology for SLDS as long as the required designation, purpose, and privacy protections are in place. The proposed amendments to § 99.35 would require that these protections are in place.
As explained in the preamble to the December 2008 regulations (
In the event that an educational agency or institution objects to the redisclosure of PII it has provided, the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) may rely instead on any independent authority it has to further disclose the information on behalf of the agency or institution. The Department recognizes that this authority may be implied and need not be explicitly granted.
By removing the language concerning legal authority from current § 99.35(a)(2), the Department would clarify two things to eliminate this confusion. First, the Department would clarify that the authority for a State or local educational authority or Federal agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to conduct an audit, evaluation, enforcement or compliance activity may be express or implied. And, second, the Department would clarify that FERPA permits non-consensual disclosure of PII to a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to conduct an audit, evaluation, or compliance or enforcement activity with respect to the Federal or State supported education programs of the recipient's own Federal or State supported education programs as well as those of the disclosing educational agency or the institution.
The Department intends these clarifications to promote Federal initiatives to support the robust use of data by State and local educational authorities to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal or State supported education programs. The provision of postsecondary student data to P-12 data systems is vital to evaluating whether P-12 schools are effectively preparing students for college. This proposed clarification would, for example, establish that FERPA does not prohibit a private postsecondary institution from non-consensually disclosing to an LEA PII on the LEA's former students who are now in attendance at the private postsecondary institution, as may be necessary for the LEA to evaluate the Federal or State supported education programs that the LEA administers. This proposed clarification similarly would establish that FERPA does not prohibit a postsecondary data system from non-consensually redisclosing PII to an SEA in connection with the SEA's evaluation of whether the State's LEAs effectively prepared their graduates to enroll, persist, and succeed in postsecondary education.
The directory information exception is intended to facilitate communication among school officials, parents, students, alumni, and others, and permits schools to publicize and promote institutional activities to the general public. Many schools do so by publishing paper or electronic directories that contain student names, addresses, telephone listings, e-mail addresses, and other information the institution has designated as directory information. Some schools do not publish a directory but do release directory information on a more selective basis. FERPA allows a parent or eligible student to opt out of these disclosures (under the conditions specified in § 99.37(a)), whether the information is made available to the general public, limited to members of the school community, or released only to specified individuals.
The Secretary believes, however, that the need for schools and college campuses to implement measures to ensure the safety and security of students is of the utmost importance and that FERPA should not be used as an impediment to achieving student safety. Thus, the right to opt out of the disclosure of directory information does not include the right to refuse to wear or otherwise disclose a student ID card or badge that displays directory information and, therefore, may not be used to impede a school's ability to monitor and control who is in school buildings or on school grounds or whether a student is where he or she should be. This proposed change would mean that, even when a parent or eligible student opts out of the disclosure of directory information, an educational agency or institution may nevertheless require the student to wear and otherwise disclose a student ID card or badge that displays information that may be designated as directory information under § 99.3 and that has been properly designated by the educational agency or institution as directory information under § 99.37(a)(1).
However, in order not to impose additional administrative burdens on educational agencies and institutions, the Department is not proposing changes to the recordkeeping requirement in § 99.32(d)(4), which currently excepts educational agencies and institutions from having to record the disclosure of directory information. For similar reasons, the Department is not proposing to amend the redisclosure provisions in § 99.33(c), which except the redisclosure of directory information from the general prohibition on redisclosure of personally identifiable information. While the Department is not proposing to regulate on the redisclosure of directory information by third parties that receive directory information from educational agencies or institutions under a limited directory information policy, we nevertheless strongly recommend that educational agencies and institutions that choose to adopt a limited directory information policy assess the need to protect the directory information from further disclosure by the third parties to which they disclose directory information; when a need to protect the information from further disclosure is identified, educational agencies and institutions should enter into non-disclosure agreements with the third parties.
Consequently, the current regulations do not clearly authorize FPCO to investigate, review, and process an alleged violation committed by recipients of Department funds under a program administered by the Secretary in which students do not attend. In addition, the regulations do not clearly authorize the Secretary to bring an enforcement action against these recipients. Further, it would not be fair to hold an LEA or institution of higher education (IHE) that originally disclosed the PII to a State or local educational authority responsible for violation of FERPA by the State or local educational authority because the LEA or IHE generally would not have an effective means to prevent such an improper redisclosure by a State or local educational authority.
Therefore, the Department proposes to add a new § 99.60(a)(2) that would clearly authorize the Department to hold State educational authorities(
Because the Department has generally not viewed these entities as being “educational agencies or institutions” under FERPA and consequently has not viewed most FERPA provisions as applying to them (
We expect that we will face few issues concerning these entities' compliance with the few additional FERPA provisions that may be applicable to them. For example, the FERPA requirements, in addition to those in § 99.33, that may be applicable to entities that are not “educational agencies or institutions” under FERPA include, but are not limited to, the right to inspect and review education records maintained by an SEA or any of its components under § 99.10(a)(2), the requirement that organizations conducting studies under § 99.31(a)(6) must not permit the personal identification of parents and students by anyone other than representatives of that organization with legitimate interests in the information and must destroy or return personally identifiable information from education records when the information is no longer needed for the purposes for which the study was conducted, and the requirement in § 99.35(b)(2) that personally identifiable information from education records that is collected by a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) in connection with an audit or evaluation of Federal or State supported education programs, or to enforce Federal legal requirements related to Federal or State supported education programs, must be destroyed when no longer needed for these purposes.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is significant under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Secretary has assessed potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action and determined that the benefits justify the costs.
These proposed regulations are needed to ensure that the Department's implementation of FERPA continues to protect the privacy of student education records, while allowing for the effective use of data in education records, particularly data in statewide longitudinal data systems.
Following is an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed changes to the FERPA regulations, which would make changes to facilitate the disclosure, without written consent, of education records, particularly data in
The proposed regulations would amend § 99.3 by adding a definition of the term
The Department also proposes to amend § 99.35 to require that written agreements require PII to be used only to carry out an audit or an evaluation of Federal or State supported education program or for an enforcement or compliance activity in connection with Federal legal requirements that relate to those programs and protect PII from unauthorized disclosure. The cost of entering into such agreements should be minimal in relation to the benefits of being able to share data.
The proposed regulations would amend § 99.3 by providing a definition of the term
Section (b)(1)(F) of FERPA permits educational agencies and institutions non-consensually to disclose PII to organizations conducting research studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions that provided the PII, for statutorily-specified purposes. The proposed amendment to § 99.31(a)(6) would permit any of the authorities listed in § 99.31(a)(3), including SEAs, to enter into written agreements that provide for the disclosure of PII to research organizations for studies that would benefit the educational agencies or institutions that provided the PII to the SEA or other educational authorities, whether or not the educational authority has explicit authority to act on behalf of those agencies or institutions. The preamble to the final FERPA regulations published in the
Under current § 99.35(a)(2), the authority for an SEA or LEA to conduct an audit, evaluation, or compliance or enforcement activity is not conferred by FERPA, but “must be established under other Federal, State, or local authority.” Lack of such explicit State or local authority has hindered the use of data in some States. The proposed amendments would remove the discussion of legal authority in order to clarify that FERPA and its implementing regulations do not require that a State or local educational authority have express legal authority to conduct audits, evaluations, or compliance or enforcement activities, but instead may obtain PII when they have implied authority to conduct evaluation, audit, and compliance activities of their own programs.
This proposed change also would allow an SEA to receive PII from postsecondary institutions as needed to evaluate its own programs and determine whether its schools are adequately preparing students for higher education. The preamble to the final FERPA regulations published in the
Sections (f) and (g) of FERPA authorize the Secretary to take appropriate actions to enforce and deal with FERPA violations, but subpart E of the FERPA regulations only addresses alleged violations of FERPA by an “educational agency or institution.” Because the Department has not interpreted that term to include agencies or institutions that students do not attend, the current FERPA regulations do not specifically permit the Secretary to bring an enforcement action against an SEA or other State or local educational authority that does not meet the definition of an “educational agency or institution” under FERPA. Thus, for example, if an SEA improperly redisclosed PII obtained from its LEAs, the Department would pursue enforcement actions against each of the LEAs, and not the SEA. Proposed § 99.60(a)(2), which would define an “educational agency or institution” to include any State or local educational authority or other recipient that has received Department of Education funds, would allow the Department to pursue enforcement against a State agency or other recipient of Department funds that had allegedly disclosed the PII, rather than against the agency or institution that had provided the PII to the State agency or other recipient of Department funds.
This change would result in some administrative savings and improve the efficiency of the enforcement process. Under the current regulations, if, for example, an SEA with 500 LEAs improperly redisclosed PII from its SLDS to an unauthorized party, the Department would need to investigate each of the 500 LEAs, which are unlikely to have knowledge relating to the disclosure. Under the proposed change, the LEAs would be relieved of any administrative costs associated with responding to the Department's request for information about the disclosure and the Department could immediately direct the focus of its investigation on the SEA, the agency most likely to have information on and bear responsibility for the disclosure of PII, without having to waste time and resources contacting the LEAs.
We welcome public input and data to further inform and allow us to quantify the costs and benefits of these proposed changes. We particularly welcome information on the costs encountered by State agencies using education data maintained by SEAs and the impediments to using postsecondary education data.
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly stated?
• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing,
• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” is preceded by the symbol “§ ” and a numbered heading; for example, § 99.35.)
• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make these proposed regulations easier to understand,
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect are small LEAs. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by these regulations would be limited to paperwork burden related to requirements concerning data-sharing agreements and that the benefits from ensuring that data from education records are collected, stored, and shared appropriately outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define as
According to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates programs that were based on school district boundaries for the 2007-8 school year, there are 12,484 LEAs in the country that include fewer than 50,000 individuals within their boundaries and for which there is estimated to be at least one school-age child. In its 1997 publication,
The Department does not have reliable data with which to estimate how many of the remaining 7,684 small LEAs would enter into data-sharing agreements. For small LEAs that enter into data-sharing agreements, we estimate that they would spend approximately 4 hours executing each agreement, using a standard data-sharing protocol. Thus, we assume the impact on the entities would be minimal. However, we invite comment from entities familiar with data-sharing in small districts on the number of entities likely to enter into agreements each year, the number of such agreements, and number of hours required to execute each agreement.
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local elected officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
“Federalism implications” means substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed regulations in §§ 99.3, 99.31(a)(6), and 99.35 may have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, in that they will have some effect on the States and the operation of educational agencies and institutions subject to FERPA. We encourage State and local elected officials to review and provide comments on these proposed regulations. To facilitate review and comment by appropriate State and local officials, the Department will, aside from publication in the
Proposed §§ 99.31(a)(6)(ii) and 99.35(a)(3) contain information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. (OMB Control Number 1875-0246.)
The proposed regulations modify the information collection requirements in § 99.31(a)(6)(ii) and § 99.32(b)(2); however, the Department does not believe the proposed changes add any new burden to State or local educational authorities. Burdens associated with §§ 99.31(a)(6)(ii) and 99.32(b)(2) were approved under OMB Control Number 1875-0246 when the December 9, 2008 regulations were published. The proposed change that would clarify that nothing in FERPA prevents a State or local educational authority or Federal agencies and officials listed in § 99.31(a)(3) from entering into written agreements with organizations conducting studies, for or on behalf of educational agencies and institutions does not constitute a change or an increase in burden. This is because the provision would permit an organization conducting a study to enter into one written agreement with a State or local educational authority or Federal agency or official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), rather than making the organization enter into many more written agreements with each school district or school that provided the data to the State or local educational authority or Federal agency or official listed in § 99.31(a)(3). The addition of the definition of the term
Section 99.35(a)(3) would be a new requirement that requires the agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) to use a written agreement to designate any authorized representative other than an agency employee. Under the proposed regulations, the agreement would need to: (1) Designate the individual or entity as an authorized representative; (2) specify the information to be disclosed and the purpose for which the information is disclosed to the authorized representative (
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection requirements in these proposed regulations, please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by e-mail to
We consider your comments on these proposed collections of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed collections are necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collections, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Education records, Education research, Information, Personally identifiable information, Privacy, Records, Statewide longitudinal data systems.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to amend part 99 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 99 continues to read as follows:
20 U.S.C. 1232g, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 99.3 is amended by:
A. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for “authorized representative” and “education program”.
B. Revising the definition of “directory information”.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a) Directory information includes, but is not limited to, the student's name; address; telephone listing; electronic mail address; photograph; date and place of birth; major field of study; grade level; enrollment status (
(b) Directory information does not include a student's—
(1) Social security number; or
(2) Student identification (ID) number, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Directory information includes—
(1) A student ID number, user ID, or other unique personal identifier used by a student for purposes of accessing or communicating in electronic systems, but only if the identifier cannot be used to gain access to education records except when used in conjunction with one or more factors that authenticate the user's identity, such as a personal identification number (PIN), password or other factor known or possessed only by the authorized user; and
(2) A student ID number or other unique personal identifier that is displayed on a student ID badge, but only if the identifier cannot be used to gain access to education records except when used in conjunction with one or more factors that authenticate the user's identity, such as a PIN, password, or other factor known or possessed only by the authorized user.
3. Section 99.31 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(6)(ii) through (v) as paragraphs (a)(6)(iii) through (vi), respectively.
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(6)(ii).
C. Revising the introductory text of newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6)(iii).
D. Revising the introductory text of newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(C).
E. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(C)(
F. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6)(iv).
G. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(6)(v).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Nothing in the Act or this part prevents a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section from entering into agreements with organizations conducting studies under paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section and redisclosing personally identifiable information from education records on behalf of educational agencies and institutions that disclosed the information to the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in accordance with the requirements of § 99.33(b).
(iii) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information under paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section, and a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section may redisclose personally identifiable information under paragraph (a)(6)(i) and (a)(6)(ii) of this section, only if—
(C) The educational agency or institution or the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section enters into a written agreement with the organization that—
(
(iv) An educational agency or institution or State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is not required to initiate a study or agree with or endorse the conclusions or results of the study.
(v) If the Family Policy Compliance Office determines that a third party, outside the educational agency or institution, or the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section to which personally identifiable information is disclosed under paragraph (a)(6) of this section, violates paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section, then the educational agency or institution, or the State or local educational authority or agency listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section from which the personally identifiable information originated may not allow the third party responsible for the violation of paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(B) of this section access to personally identifiable information from education records for at least five years.
4. Section 99.35 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (a)(2).
B. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3).
C. Revising paragraph (b).
D. Adding a new paragraph (d).
E. Revising the authority citation at the end of the section.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) The State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) is responsible for using reasonable methods to ensure that any entity or individual designated as its authorized representative—
(i) Uses personally identifiable information from education records only to carry out an audit, evaluation, or an activity for the purpose of enforcement of, or ensuring compliance with, Federal legal requirements related to Federal or State supported education programs;
(ii) Protects the personally identifiable information from further disclosures or other uses, except as authorized in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
(iii) Destroys the personally identifiable information in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(3) The State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) must use a written agreement to designate any authorized representative, other than an employee. The written agreement must—
(i) Designate the individual or entity as an authorized representative;
(ii) Specify the information to be disclosed and that the purpose for which the information is disclosed to the authorized representative is to carry out an audit or evaluation of Federal or State supported education programs, or to enforce or to comply with Federal legal requirements that relate to those programs;
(iii) Require the authorized representative to destroy or return to the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3) personally identifiable information from education records when the information is no longer needed for the purpose specified;
(iv) Specify the time period in which the information must be returned or destroyed; and
(v) Establish policies and procedures, consistent with FERPA and other Federal and State confidentiality and privacy provisions, to protect personally identifiable information from education records from further disclosure (except back to the disclosing entity) and unauthorized use, including limiting use of personally identifiable information to only authorized representatives with legitimate interests.
(b) Information that is collected under paragraph (a) of this section must—
(1) Be protected in a manner that does not permit personal identification of individuals by anyone other than the authorities or agencies headed by officials referred to in paragraph (a) of this section and their authorized representatives, except that those authorities and agencies may make further disclosures of personally identifiable information from education records on behalf of the educational agency or institution in accordance with the requirements of § 99.33(b); and
(2) Be destroyed when no longer needed for the purposes listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) If the Family Policy Compliance Office finds that a State or local educational authority, an agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), or an authorized representative of a State or local educational authority or an agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), improperly rediscloses personally identifiable information from education records, the educational agency or institution from which the personally identifiable information originated may not allow the authorized representative, or the State or local educational authority or the agency headed by an official listed in § 99.31(a)(3), or both, access to personally identifiable information from education records for at least five years.
5. Section 99.37 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (c).
B. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e) and adding a new paragraph (d).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) A parent or eligible student may not use the right under paragraph (a)(2) of this section to opt out of directory information disclosures to—
(1) Prevent an educational agency or institution from disclosing or requiring a student to disclose the student's name, identifier, or institutional e-mail address in a class in which the student is enrolled; or
(2) Prevent an educational agency or institution from requiring a student to wear, to display publicly, or to disclose a student ID card or badge that exhibits information that may be designated as directory information under § 99.3 and that has been properly designated by the educational agency or institution as directory information in the public notice provided under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(d) In its public notice to parents and eligible students in attendance at the agency or institution that is described in paragraph (a) of this section, an educational agency or institution may specify that disclosure of directory information will be limited to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both. When an educational agency or institution specifies that disclosure of directory information will be limited to specific parties, for specific purposes, or both, the educational agency or institution must limit its directory information disclosures to those specified in its public notice that is described in paragraph (a) of this section.
6. Section 99.60 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1) and adding a new paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Solely for the purposes of this subpart, an “educational agency or institution” includes any public or private agency or institution to which this part applies under § 99.1(a)(2), as well as any State or local educational authority or any other recipient to which funds have been made available under any program administered by the Secretary, including funds provided by grant, cooperative agreement, contract, subgrant, or subcontract.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
On November 18, 2010 (75 FR 70654), EPA published a proposed rule to disapprove severable portions of two revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Texas on May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, that create and amend the System Cap Trading (SCT) Program at Title 30 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 101—General Air Quality, Subchapter H—Emissions Banking and Trading, Division 5, sections 101.380, 101.382, 101.383, and 101.385. We proposed disapproval because the SCT Program lacks several necessary components for emissions trading programs as outlined in EPA's Economic Incentive Program Guidance. Subsequent to our proposed disapproval, EPA received a letter dated March 4, 2011, from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) stating that the May 1, 2001, and August 16, 2007, SCT Program SIP submissions have been withdrawn from our consideration as revisions to the Texas SIP. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing our proposed disapproval and finds that no further action is necessary on the SCT Program. The State's action also withdraws from EPA's review the SCT Program component of the January 22, 2010 Consent Decree between EPA and the BCCA Appeal Group, Texas Association of Business, and Texas Oil and Gas Association. This withdrawal is being taken under section 110 and parts C and D of the Federal Clean Air Act.
The proposed rule published on November 18, 2010 (75 FR 70654), is withdrawn as of April 8, 2011.
Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is (214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed or continuing 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 burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (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.
Submit comments on or before June 7, 2011.
Sylvia Joyner, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07C, RRB, Washington, DC, 20523 (202) 712-5007 or via e-mail
Send comments via e-mail at
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed or continuing 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 burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (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.
Submit comments on or before June 7, 2011.
Sylvia Joyner, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07C, RRB, Washington, DC 20523, (202) 712-5007 or via e-mail
Send comments via e-mail at
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This notice announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed establishment and production of giant miscanthus (
We will consider comments that we receive by May 7, 2011. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will consider comments received after that date to the extent possible.
We invite you to submit comments on the draft EA. In your comment, include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
•
•
•
Comments may be inspected in the Office of the Director, CEPD, FSA, USDA, Room 4709 South Building, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
You may request copies of the draft EA for Giant Miscanthus by writing to: Giant Miscanthus EA Copies, Integrated Environmental Solutions, LLC, 2150 S Central Expy, Ste 110, McKinney, TX 75070, or by e-mail to:
Matthew Ponish, (202) 720-6853.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (braille, large print, audio tape,
The Aloterra Energy and MFA Oil Biomass Company submitted a proposal to FSA to establish BCAP project areas in Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The proposal is to establish and produce giant miscanthus as a dedicated energy crop. The draft EA analyzes the environmental impacts of growing giant miscanthus in those areas. FSA will review comments submitted on the draft EA in response to this notice and use the additional input in developing the final EA and decision document about whether to approve the project or not. This notice announces the availability of the draft EA and the opening of the comment period; it does not discuss the contents of the draft EA.
The draft EA for the proposed BCAP project areas supporting the establishment and production of Giant Miscanthus (
The draft EA was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347); the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR 799). As specified in the CEQ regulation, an EA is “ * * * a concise document for which a Federal agency is responsible that serves to (1) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS] or (2) a finding of no significant impact” (40 CFR 1508.9). Additionally, since this document falls under the guidance of the BCAP final programmatic EIS (PEIS), which was a broad national-level program document, CEQ guidance allows for “tiering.” The CEQ regulation states that tiering “refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared” (40 CFR 1508.28).
Section 9001 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246, commonly referred to as the 2008 Farm Bill) authorizes BCAP. BCAP is administered by the FSA Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, on behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), with the support of other Federal and local agencies. BCAP is intended to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with the establishment and production of eligible crops in selected project areas for conversion to bioenergy, and the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material for use in a biomass conversion facility.
On October 27, 2010, CCC published the Record of Decision (ROD) for the BCAP final PEIS (75 FR 65995-66007) and BCAP final rule (76 FR 66202-66243) in the
(1) No additional environmental analyses are applicable due to no potential for the proposed BCAP activity to significantly impact the environment, or
(2) Additional environmental analyses in the form of an EA or EIS are necessary, depending upon the potential level of significance.
Due to inconclusive results in the initial environmental evaluation, FSA is required to do an EA to make a determination whether there could be significant environmental impacts.
The draft EA can be reviewed online at
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of adjusted dollar limitations.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing the dollar limitations on the amount of meat and meat food products, poultry and poultry products that a retail store can sell to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions without disqualifying itself for exemption from Federal inspection requirements. In accordance with FSIS's regulations, for calendar year 2011, the dollar limitation for meat and meat food products is being increased from $60,200 to $61,900 but for poultry products will remain at $50,200. FSIS is retaining or changing the dollar limitations from calendar year 2010 based on price changes for these products evidenced by the Consumer Price Index.
Contact John O'Connell, Policy Issuances Division, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 6083 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; telephone (202) 720-0345.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601
Under these regulations, sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions (other than household consumers) disqualify a store for exemption if the product sales exceed either of two maximum limits: 25 percent of the dollar value of total product sales or the calendar year dollar limitation set by the Administrator. The dollar limitation is adjusted automatically during the first quarter of the year if the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows an increase or decrease of more than $500 in the price of the same volume of product for the previous year. FSIS publishes a notice of the adjusted dollar limitations in the
The CPI for 2010 reveals an annual average price increase for meat and meat food products at 2.84 percent and an annual average price decrease for poultry products at 0.12 percent. When rounded to the nearest $100, the price for meat and meat food products increased by $1,700 and the price for poultry products decreased by $100. Because the price of meat and meat food products increased by more than $500, and because the price of poultry products did not decrease by more than $500, FSIS is increasing the dollar limitation on sales to hotels, restaurants, and similar institutions to $61,900 for meat and meat food products and is retaining it at $50,200 for poultry products for calendar year 2011, in accordance with 9 CFR 303.1(d)(2)(iii)(
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Options range from recalls, export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is sponsoring a public meeting on June 16, 2011. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda
The public meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2011, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The public meeting will be held in the Jamie L. Whitten Building, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250.
Documents related to the 34th session of the CAC will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Karen Stuck, U.S. Codex Manager, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following e-mail address:
Barbara McNiff, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250, telephone: (202) 690-4719, fax: (202) 720-3157, e-mail:
The CAC was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their implementation by governments, Codex seeks to:
(a) Protect the health of the consumers and ensure fair practices in food trade;
(b) Promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non governmental organizations;
(c) Determine priorities and initiate and guide the preparation of draft standards through and with the aid of appropriate organizations;
(d) Finalize standards elaborated under (c) above and publish them in a Codex Alimentarius either as regional or worldwide standards, together with international standards already finalized by other bodies under (b) above, wherever this is practicable;
(e) Amend published standards, as appropriate, in the light of new developments.
The following items on the agenda for the 34th session of the CAC will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Report by the Chairperson on the 65th session of the Executive Committee
• Reports of the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committees and Appointment of Regional Coordinators
• Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Manual
• Comments on the Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Manual
• Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 8 of the Procedure (including those submitted at Step 5 with a recommendation to omit Steps 6 and 7 and at Step 5 of the Accelerated Procedure)
• Comments on Draft Standards and Related Texts at Step 5
• Revocation of Existing Codex Standards and Related Texts
• Amendments to Codex Standards and Related Texts
• Proposals for the Elaboration of New Standards and Related Texts and for the Discontinuation of Work
• Matters referred to the CAC by Codex Committees and Task Forces
• Financial and Budgetary Matters
• Strategic Planning of the CAC
• Relations between the CAC and other International Organizations
• Matters arising from the FAO and the WHO
(a) FAO/WHO Project and Trust Fund for Enhanced Participation in Codex
(b) Other Matters arising from the FAO and the WHO
• Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons, and other Members of the Executive Committee
• Designation of Countries responsible for Appointing the Chairpersons of Codex Committees and Task Forces and Schedule of Sessions 2012-2013
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the meeting. Members of the public may access copies of these documents (
At the 34th session of the CAC public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Codex Manager for the 34th session of CAC. (
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI and National Park Service, USDI.
Notice of availability
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Forest Service (FS), with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS) as cooperating agencies, has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line Project and a Proposed Management Plan Amendment (PMPA) for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and by this notice is announcing its availability.
BLM planning regulations state that any person who meets the conditions as described in the regulations may protest the BLM's PMPA/FEIS. A person who meets the conditions and files a protest must file the protest within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line Project FEIS/PMPA for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument have been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies and to other stakeholders. Copies of the FEIS/PMPA are available for public inspection at the following BLM offices: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Headquarters, 190 E. Center Street, Kanab, UT; Kanab Field Office, 318 N 100 E, Kanab, UT; Utah State Office, 440 W 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT. Interested persons may also download and/or review the FEIS/PMPA on the Internet at
All protests related to the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument PMPA must be in writing and mailed to one of the following addresses:
Ms. Susan Baughman, Dixie National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Tropic to Hatch 138kV Transmission Line Project EIS Project Leader, 1789 N. Wedgewood Lane, Cedar City, Utah 84720 or; Matthew Betenson, Assistant Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Manager—Planning and Support Services, 190 E Center, Kanab, Utah 84741/phone (435) 644-4309.
The FEIS/PMPA evaluates the environmental effects of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line proposed by Garkane Energy Cooperative in Garfield County, Utah, on lands currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Dixie National Forest; U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kanab Field Office, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; and potentially the National Park Service, Bryce Canyon National Park. The transmission line would be approximately 30 miles long, beginning in Tropic, Utah and extending west to Hatch, Utah. Associated Federal actions include Dixie National Forest issuance of a special use easement, Bureau of Land Management issuance of a right-of-way, proposed amendment to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan and issuance of a right-of-way, potential Bryce Canyon National Park issuance of a special park permit for a right-of-way, and Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration issuance of a right-of-way for construction and operation of the project. The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS/PMPA would amend the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan (2000) by: (a) Designating a 300-foot wide Passage Zone along an approximate three and three-quarter mile path through an area currently designated as Primitive Zone in the Monument Management Plan, and (b) changing the existing VRM Class designation from Class II to Class III within this linear area. The plan amendment decisions would be necessary to accommodate the potential new transmission line.
Comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS Plan Amendment were received from the public and from internal interagency governmental review. These comments were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the FEIS/PMPA. Public comments resulted in the addition of clarifying text, but did not significantly change the FEIS/PMPA. This final document is expected to be used in conjunction with the Draft EIS published in December 2009. The two documents, together, make up the FEIS/PMPA for the Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line.
Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the FEIS/PMPA may be found in the “Dear Reader Letter” of the Tropic to Hatch 138 kV Transmission Line FEIS and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2. E-mail and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the e-mail or faxed protest as an advance copy and it will receive full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests
All protests, including the follow-up letter to e-mails or faxes, must be in writing and mailed to the appropriate address, as set forth in the
42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 40 CFR 1500-1508, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5, and 36 CFR 220.
U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 7, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Patrick J. Benton, Census Bureau, Room HQ-6H045, Washington, DC 20233-8400, (301) 763-4618.
The Census Bureau plans to conduct a field test for the Re-engineered SIPP from January to May of 2011. The SIPP is a household-based survey designed as a continuous series of national panels. The SIPP is molded around a central “core” of labor force and income questions that remain fixed throughout the life of the panel and then supplemented with questions designed to address specific needs. Examples of these types of questions include medical expenses, child care, retirement and pension plan coverage, marital history, and others.
The 2011 Re-engineered SIPP instrument is a revision of the 2010 Re-SIPP test instrument, in which respondents were interviewed during the 2010 Dress Rehearsal Re-SIPP Field Test. The Re-engineered SIPP will interview respondents in one year intervals, using the previous calendar year as the reference period.
The content of the Re-engineered SIPP will match that of the 2008 Panel SIPP very closely. The Re-engineered SIPP will not contain free-standing topical modules. However, a portion of the 2008 Panel topical module content will be integrated into the Re-engineered SIPP interview. The Re-engineered SIPP will use an Event History Calendar (EHC) which records dates of events and spells of coverage. The EHC should provide increased accuracy to dates reported by respondents.
The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows information for separate topics to be integrated to form a single, unified database so that the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies can be examined. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon the SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on this distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population, which the SIPP has provided on a continuing basis since 1983. The SIPP has measured levels of economic well-being and permitted changes in these levels to be measured over time.
Approximately 4,000 households will be selected for the 2011 Re-engineered SIPP field test, of which, 3200 households are expected to be interviewed. We estimate that each household contains 2.1 people aged 15 and above, yielding approximately 6,720 person-level interviews in this field test. Interviews take 60 minutes on average. The total annual burden for 2011 Re-engineered SIPP field test interviews would be 6,720 hours in FY 2011.
The 2011 Re-engineered SIPP field test instrument will consist of one household interview which will reference the calendar year 2010. The interview is conducted in person with all household members 15 years old or over using regular proxy-respondent rules.
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.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand the subzone and the scope of manufacturing authority under zone procedures within Subzone 29F, as described in the application and
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to extend the subzone and manufacturing authority for the production of adhesive bandages under zone procedures within Subzone 169A, as described in the application and
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 133 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, and further subject to a sunset provision that would terminate authority on March 31, 2018 for Sites 1, 3, 4 and 5 where no activity has occurred under FTZ procedures before that date.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on solid urea from the Russian Federation (Russia) and Ukraine, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Dustin Ross or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
On December 1, 2010, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
The Department received notices of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from the domestic interested parties, the urea-producing members of the Ad Hoc Committee of Domestic Nitrogen Producers, CF Industries, Inc., and PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P., within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers of a domestic like product for each proceeding.
The Department received complete substantive responses to the
The merchandise subject to the orders is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3102.10.00.00. Previously such merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Solid Urea From the Russian Federation and Ukraine” from Gary Taverman to Ronald K. Lorentzen dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion
In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at
The Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on solid urea from Russia and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This EFP application would exempt commercial fishing vessels from the following Federal American lobster regulations: (1) Gear specifications (including escape vents, ghost panel and maximum trap size; (2) trap limits; and (3) trap tags to allow 11 Federally permitted vessels to utilize a combined total of 35 modified lobster traps to catch juvenile lobsters, (30-50 mm carapace length), throughout lobster management area 3 (Area 3), in an attempt to understand patterns of larval dispersal and settlement. This proposed project would be conducted by the Atlantic Offshore Lobster Association (AOLA) in conjunction with scientists and the fishing industry.
Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2011.
Comments on this notice may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
• Fax: (978) 281-9135.
Carol Shé, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-282-8464,
AOLA submitted a complete application for an EFP on March 11, 2011, to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP application would exempt commercial fishing vessels from the following Federal regulations: gear specifications (including escape vents, ghost panel and maximum trap size) specified under 50 CFR 697.21(c)(4), 697.21(d) and 697.21(e)(2)(ii); trap limits specified under § 697.19(b)(5); and trap tags specified under § 697.19(f). The EFP would authorize 11 Federally permitted vessels to be exempted from parts of the Federal lobster regulations to allow the participating vessels to fish modified lobster traps, exceed trap limits, and deploy the modified traps without trap tags in an attempt to formalize the anecdotal presence of young lobsters. Some lobster scientists believe that larvae will only survive in the inshore fishery due to the depths and available light, and that there are no small lobsters offshore; however, data resulting from this project are intended to determine whether there are new lobster nursery grounds offshore.
This project, including the lobster handling protocols, was initially developed in consultation with University of New Hampshire scientists. To the greatest extent practicable, these handling protocols are designed to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impact on lobsters involved in this project, while achieving the data collection objectives of this project. AOLA will work in conjunction with scientists and the fishing industry to build and test various trap modifications to determine the optimal design for use in offshore waters. The modified gear may exceed the Federal maximum trap size restrictions, include smaller wire mesh sizes, modified entrance heads/rings, closed or modified escape vents, and cobble acting as shelter material. The deployment of the experimental traps throughout lobster management area 3 (Area 3) statistical areas 464, 522, 561, 562, 525, 526, 533, 537, 613, 616, and 622, would begin in April 2011 and extend through August 2012. AOLA would submit progress reports in December 2011 and September 2012, since the project would exceed 1 year. Participating vessels would include between one and three experimental lobster traps as part of a commercial lobster trap trawl deployed under routine industry conditions. Modified traps would remain in the water for up to 6 consecutive months (182 days), being hauled approximately weekly
The activities occurring in Area 3 statistical areas are not anticipated to have any more environmental impacts than those already occurring as part of a commercial lobster trap trawl deployed under usual industry conditions. Impacts to the lobster resource would be negligible. Given the small mesh and entrance heads, the modified gear is not expected to catch legal lobsters. Any sublegal lobsters caught would briefly be retained onboard only for the purposes of recording their size, sex, and presence of shell disease, before being promptly released back into the ocean. There should be minimal impact to bycatch species due to the use of small mesh and small entrance heads and, in addition, all bycatch species hauled from modified gear would be returned promptly to the ocean. Likewise, there would not be significant impacts on benthic habitats. As the gear would be compliant with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and would be deployed under usual industry conditions, impacts to protected resources would be negligible.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that two requests for extensions to exempted fishing permits (EFPs) contain all of the required information and warrant further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator previously made a determination that the activities authorized under the initial EFPs, issued on June 17, 2010, are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to grant extensions to the original EFPs. The EFP extensions would enable vessels to harvest monkfish granted through the Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program, and grants exemptions from the monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) possession limit in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). The EFP issued to the gillnet tie-down study also exempts vessels from the monkfish minimum fish size limits for research purposes only.
NMFS is soliciting comment from interested parties on these EFP extension requests.
Comments must be received on or before April 25, 2011.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jason Berthiaume, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9177.
On February 22, 2011, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) requested an extension to EFPs issued to GMRI in support of two projects funded under the 2010 Monkfish RSA Program. The EFPs authorize vessels to conduct compensation fishing in the SFMA using 2010 monkfish RSA DAS and to temporarily retain undersize monkfish for data collection purposes. The applicant requests an extension because the participating vessels were unable to use all of their allocated RSA DAS awarded to GMRI for the 2010 fishing year (FY). GMRI states the vessels were unable to use all of their RSA DAS because the EFPs were not issued until June 17, 2010, and the fishermen thereby missed the peak of the spring fishing season. Additionally, the fall monkfish fishery was less productive than expected because of skate bycatch issues. As a result, fishermen used fewer 2010 monkfish RSA DAS than expected. In addition to compensation fishing, research would be ongoing and, therefore, the previously authorized exemption from monkfish minimum size limits for the gillnet tie-down project would be extended as well. The scope and scale of the original exemptions will not change. Regulations at 50 CFR 648.92(c)(i)(v) allow unused monkfish RSA DAS to carry-over into the following FY.
The tagging project was awarded 313 monkfish DAS under the 2010 Monkfish RSA Program, with a total landings cap of 1,126,800 lb (511,108 kg) of whole monkfish. Compensation fishing would be extended through the 2011 FY until the cumulative monkfish RSA landings for this project in FYs 2010 and 2011 reach 1,126,800 lb (511,108 kg) of whole monkfish (equivalent), or until the awarded 2010 DAS have been fully utilized, whichever occurs first. The tie-down project was awarded 162 monkfish DAS under the 2010 Monkfish RSA Program, with a total landings cap of 583,200 lb (264,535 kg) of whole monkfish. Compensation fishing would be extended through the 2011 FY until the cumulative monkfish RSA landings for this project in FYs 2010 and 2011 reach 583,200 lb (264,535 kg) of whole monkfish (equivalent), or until the awarded 2010 DAS have been fully utilized, whichever occurs first. This would extend the expiration date of the EFPs from April 30, 2011, to April 30, 2012. No further extensions to these EFPs would be made. Additionally, NMFS is considering imposing a cap on monkfish DAS possession limit exemptions for vessels operating under the monkfish RSA program due to
A detailed description of the initial EFP proposals were provided in previous
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Reef Fish Advisory Panel.
The meeting will convene at 9 a.m. on Monday April 25, 2011 and conclude by 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
Mr. Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Reef Fish Advisory Panel will meet to review and provide recommendations to the Council on Reef Fish Amendment 32. This amendment contains actions to establish a rebuilding plan for gag, set recreational bag limits, size limits and closed seasons for gag/red grouper in 2012, consider a commercial gag and shallow-water grouper quota adjustment to account for dead discards, make adjustment to multi-use IFQ shares in the grouper individual fishing quota program, reduce the commercial gag size limit, modify the offshore time and areas closures, and establish gag, red grouper, and shallow-water grouper accountability measures. The Panel will also review and provide recommendations on the Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment. This amendment contains actions to delegate management of selected species to other agencies, remove selected species from the fishery management plans, group species for purposes of setting annual catch limits and annual catch targets, establish an acceptable biological catch control rule, establish an annual catch limit/annual catch target control rule, establish a generic framework procedure for implementing management changes, establish the initial specification of annual catch limits and annual catch targets for stocks and stock groups still in need of such specification, establish the apportionment of the black grouper, yellowtail snapper, and mutton snapper stocks between the Gulf and South Atlantic Council jurisdictions, set a commercial and recreational allocation of black grouper within the Gulf Council's jurisdiction, and establish accountability measures to keep catch levels within their annual catch limits or take corrective action if they exceed the limits.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following product and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Addition to the Procurement List.
This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Effective Date: 5/9/2011.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On 1/28/2011 (76 FR 5142-5143), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.
Comments were received from two individuals who questioned the capability of the nonprofit agency to perform all of the required services on the contract and the suitability of this project for people who are blind or severely disabled. Both individuals expressed concerns about the pay and benefits package of the nonprofit agency.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) administers the AbilityOne® Program under the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act. Committee responsibilities include identifying products and services produced or provided by qualified nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled that the Committee determines are suitable for procurement by the Government. In accordance with Committee statutory and regulatory requirements, each project considered for addition to the Procurement List is reviewed by the Committee for suitability; particularly employment potential, nonprofit agency qualifications and level of impact on the current contractor.
The project requires a range of services that will provide employment opportunities for people with severe disabilities who otherwise face significant barriers to employment. These employees will be paid service contract wages in accordance with the Service Contract Act. The qualified nonprofit agency designated to perform the project is a capable organization with experience in fulfilling this type of service requirements, and will comply with Department of Labor requirements including wage determination rates. People who are blind or have other significant disabilities have the ability to perform the requisite job functions, and will be supported with training and supervision. If necessary, certain job
This has been considered by the Committee in their review of the suitability of this project for addition to the Procurement List
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to furnish the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:
Wednesday, April 13, 2011; 11 a.m.—12 Noon
Room 410, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the public.
The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 10 a.m.-11.a.m.
Room 410, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Vol. 76, No. 63, Friday, April 1, 2011, pages 18189-18190.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011, 10 a.m.-11 a.m.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
This document is published to identify institutions of higher education that are ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a determination by the Secretary of Defense that the institution prohibits or in effect prevents military recruiter access to the campus, students on campus or student directory information. It also implements the requirements set forth in section 983 of title 10, United States Code, and 32 CFR part 216. The institutions of higher education so identified are:
Vermont Law School, South Royalton, Vermont.
William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Nosek, (703) 695-5529.
DoD.
Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR 102-3.55(a)(1), and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective June 11, 2011 the Department of Defense gives notice that it is terminating the Transformation Advisory Group.
Contact Jim Freeman, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) gives notice that a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared for the proposed action to correct a design deficiency in the existing `Īao Stream Flood Control Project, Wailuku, Maui, HI. This effort is being proposed under Section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-483) and is necessary to provide the authorized level of reduced flood risk to the town of Wailuku. The County of Maui, Department of Public Works (DPW) is the non-Federal sponsor and the lead agency for compliance with the Hawai`i law on Environmental Impact Statements.
Comments and suggestions on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft EIS (DEIS) should be received on or before May 9, 2011.
Send written comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, ATTN: Nani Shimabuku, Project Manager, Civil and Public Works Branch (CEPOH-PP-C), Building 230, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440. Submit electronic comments to
Further information is available on the Web site for the proposed action at
1
2.
3.
Since a comprehensive public review process was completed in association with the DEA for the proposed action, the EIS scoping process will not include a formal public scoping meeting. The public comments submitted on the DEA have been compiled and will be considered during the development of the EIS. A summary of those comments is available on the Web site for the proposed action at
4.
5.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities; Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2011.
Dates:
This priority is:
In making new awards under this program, we give priority consideration to applications for the continuation of VR services programs that have been funded under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program.
29 U.S.C. 741.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
The term “Indian Tribe” is defined in the program regulations at 34 CFR 371.4 as “any Federal or State Indian band, rancheria, pueblo, colony, and community, including any Alaskan native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act).”
The term “consortium” is defined in 34 CFR 371.4 to mean two or more eligible governing bodies of Indian Tribes that apply for an award under this program by either: (1) Designating one governing body to apply for the grant; or (2) establishing and designating a separate legal entity to apply for a grant.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.250H.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the person or team listed under
2.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System(DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue
The CCR registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (
7.
We are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site. The Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities, CFDA number 84.250H, is included in this project. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities at
Please note the following:
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• 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. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a .PDF (Portable Document) format only. If you upload a file type other than a .PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250H) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.250H) 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
The AIVRS Annual Progress Reporting Form was revised in 2008 to collect data needed to assess the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with Disabilities program's performance on supplemental measures that are comparable to the job training and employment common measures. Each grantee will be required to collect and report data for these supplemental measures as part of the annual performance report requirement, including information on: (1) The number of individuals whose case record has not been closed, but have not received project services for 90 consecutive calendar days, (2) the number of eligible individuals who were employed three months after achieving an employment outcome, (3) the number of eligible individuals who were employed six months after achieving an employment outcome, (4) the average weekly earnings at entry, and (5) the average weekly earnings of the individuals whose employment outcomes resulted in earnings.
For purposes of this section VI. 4., the term “employment outcome” has the meaning provided in 34 CFR 369.4.
5.
August Martin, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5049, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7410 or by e-mail:
If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Education.
Notice inviting letters of application for participation in the Quality Assurance Program.
The Secretary of Education invites institutions of higher education that may wish to participate in the Quality Assurance Program, under section 487A(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), to submit a letter of application to participate in the program.
Letters of application may be submitted any time after April 8, 2011.
Institutions may apply to participate in the Quality Assurance Program by addressing a letter of application to Barbara Mroz, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, and submitting this letter of application electronically to the Quality Assurance mailbox at:
Warren Farr, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street, NE., UCP-3, Room 43H2, Washington, DC 20202-5232. Telephone: (202) 377-4380, 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 (
Institutions of higher education are invited to join the Department in an effort to simplify regulations and administrative processes for the Federal Student Aid Programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The goal of the Quality Assurance Program is to provide tools that help all institutions of higher education participating in these programs (Title IV, HEA programs) to promote better service to students, compliance with Title IV requirements, and continuous improvement in program delivery. The Quality Assurance Program encourages and provides tools to assist participating institutions to develop and implement their own comprehensive systems to verify student financial aid application data, and continually assess compliance with Federal requirements.
Pursuant to section 487A(a)(3) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1094a(a)(3)), the Secretary is authorized to waive for any institution participating in the Quality Assurance Program any regulations dealing with reporting or verification requirements, thus providing participating institutions with regulatory flexibility for the verification of student data, and encouraging alternative approaches that improve award accuracy.
The Secretary believes that the data provided to the Department by the institutions participating in the Quality
The Quality Assurance Program gives institutions tools and techniques to assess, measure, analyze, correct, and prevent compliance problems. The Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) Analysis Tool provides participating institutions with data for achieving targeted verification outcomes, as explained below. The evaluation tools that QA schools must complete (“FSA Assessments”) help schools develop policies and procedures as well as strengthen compliance.
The Secretary encourages institutions participating in the Quality Assurance Program to evaluate their verification policies and procedures and adopt improvements to those procedures. Institutions measure performance and test the effectiveness of their verification program by using the Department's ISIR Analysis Tool. The ISIR Analysis Tool is a Web-based software product that provides financial aid administrators with an in-depth analysis of their applicant population. It allows them to see not only which elements on the student's Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) changed when verified, but also what impact these changes have on the student's Expected Family Contribution (EFC) and aid eligibility. This analysis helps financial aid administrators develop a targeted institutional verification program, which ultimately makes the financial aid process easier for students, while ensuring accountability and program integrity.
The Quality Assurance Program also helps institutions make improvements beyond verification. By using the FSA Assessments, school staff in the financial aid office can, through teamwork, set goals for excellence in all areas of financial aid delivery on their campus. Another benefit of participating in the Quality Assurance Program is that both parties become engaged in promoting program integrity, stewardship, and customer service in the administration and delivery of the student financial assistance programs, thereby producing a more positive customer experience.
The Secretary invites institutions of higher education that administer one or more Title IV, HEA programs to submit a letter of application to participate in the Quality Assurance Program. Institutions that currently participate in the program may continue to do so without submitting a new letter of application. The Secretary will review the letter of application, which should reflect the institution's commitment to:
• Improve the accuracy of institutional verification programs;
• Increase institutional flexibility in managing student aid funds, while maintaining accountability for the proper use of those funds; and
• Encourage the development of innovative management approaches to strengthen stewardship by using the FSA Assessments.
The Department will screen prospective participants to determine if the institution meets general Title IV, HEA eligibility requirements and has a demonstrated record of program compliance. The Secretary may also consider the institution's performance with regard to financial responsibility, administrative capability, program review findings, audit findings, etc. as outlined in the applicable regulations and in the Federal Student Aid Handbook.
You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 1094a(a).
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice announcing application deadline.
Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline for submission of fiscal year (FY) 2011 SRSA grant applications.
The deadline for transmittal of electronic applications is June 30, 2011, 4:30:00 p.m. Washington, DC time.
Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W107, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-0039 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.
An LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—
(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and
(b) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.
The school locale codes are the locale codes determined on the basis of the NCES school code methodology in place on the date of enactment of section 6211(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
An eligible LEA must submit an application to receive an FY 2011 SRSA grant award if that LEA has never submitted an application for SRSA
Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes grants only to an eligible party that submits an application. Given the limited purpose served by the application under the SRSA program, the Secretary considers the application requirement to be met if an LEA submitted an SRSA application for any prior year. In this circumstance, unless an LEA advises the Secretary by the application deadline that it is withdrawing its application, the Secretary deems the application that an LEA previously submitted to remain in effect for FY 2011 funding, and the LEA does not have to submit an additional application.
We intend to provide, by April 7, 2011, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2011 funds on the Department's Web site at
Eligible LEAs that need to submit an application in order to receive FY 2011 SRSA funds must do so electronically by the deadline established in this notice.
An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application to receive FY 2011 SRSA funds must submit an electronic application by June 30, 2011, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. If it submits its application after this deadline, the LEA will receive a grant award only to the extent that funds are available after the Department awards grants to other eligible LEAs under the program.
Submission of an electronic application involves the use of the Department's G5 system. You can access the electronic application for the SRSA Program at:
The hours of operation of the G5 Web site are 6:00 a.m. Monday until 7:00 p.m. Wednesday; and 6:00 a.m. Thursday until 8:00 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the system is unavailable between 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and 6:00 a.m. on Mondays, and between 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington, DC time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the G5 Web site.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 7345-7345b.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver, granting of application for interim waiver, and request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes a petition for waiver from Carrier Corporation (Carrier). The petition for waiver (hereafter “petition”) requests a waiver from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure applicable to commercial package air-source central air conditioners and heat pumps. The petition is specific to the Carrier variable capacity Super Modular Multi-System SMMSi (commercial) multi-split heat pumps. Through this document, DOE: (1) Solicits comments, data, and information with respect to the Carrier petition; and (2) announces the grant of an interim waiver to Carrier from the existing DOE test procedure for the subject commercial multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the Carrierpetition until, but no later than May 9, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by case number “CAC-031,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Dr. Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-71, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. E-mail:
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy efficiency, including Part B of Title III, which establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Part C of Title III provides for a similar energy efficiency program titled “Certain Industrial Equipment,” which includes commercial air conditioning equipment, package boilers, water heaters, and other types of commercial equipment.
Today's notice involves commercial equipment under Part C. Part C specifically includes definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). With respect to test procedures, Part C authorizes the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating costs, and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
For commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, EPCA provides that “the test procedures shall be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE], as referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992.” (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), the statute further directs the Secretary to amend the test procedure for a covered commercial product if the industry test procedure is amended, unless the Secretary determines, by rule and based on clear and convincing evidence, that such a modified test procedure does not meet the statutory criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3).
On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, effective January 8, 2007. 71 FR 71340. Table 1 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 431.96 directs manufacturers of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment to use the appropriate procedure when measuring energy efficiency of those products. The cooling capacities of Carrier's commercial SMMSi multi-split heat pump products at issue in the waiver petition filed by Carrier range from 72,000 Btu/h to 220,000 Btu/h. All of these products are covered by ARI Standard 340/360-2004, which includes products with capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/hour.
DOE's regulations for covered products permit a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered commercial equipment if at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) The petitioner's basic model contains one or more design characteristics that prevent testing according to the prescribed test procedures; or (2) the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(1). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 431.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) may grant a waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 431.401(g).
The waiver process also permits parties submitting a petition for waiver to file an application for interim waiver of the applicable test procedure requirements. 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2). The Assistant Secretary will grant an interim waiver request if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(3). An interim waiver remains in effect for 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the petition for waiver, whichever occurs first. It may be extended by DOE for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 431.401(e)(4).
On February 16, 2011, Carrier filed a petition for waiver from the test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 applicable to commercial package air source central air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as an application for interim waiver. The capacities of the Carrier SMMSi multi-split heat pumps range from 72,000Btu/hto 220,000Btu/h. The applicable test procedure for the air-source heat pumps is ARI 340/360-2004. Manufacturers are directed to use these test procedures pursuant to Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.96.
Carrier seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96 on the grounds that its SMMSi multi-split heat pumps contain design characteristics that prevent testing according to the current DOE test procedures. Specifically, Carrier asserts that the two primary factors that prevent testing of its SMMSi multi-split variable speed products are the same factors stated in the waivers that DOE granted to Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (Mitsubishi) and other manufacturers for similar lines of commercial multi-split air-conditioning systems:
• Testing laboratories cannot test products with so many indoor units; and
• There are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to test.
Mitsubishi (69 FR 52660, August 27, 2004); Mitsubishi (72 FR 17528, April 9, 2007); Samsung (72 FR 71387, Dec. 17, 2007); Fujitsu (72 FR 71383, Dec. 17, 2007); Daikin (73 FR 39680, July 10, 2008); Daikin (74 FR 15955, April 8, 2009); Daikin (74 FR 16193, April 9, 2009); Daikin (74 FR 16373, April 10, 2009); Mitsubishi (74 FR 66311, 66315, December 15, 2009) and LG (74 FR 66330, December 15, 2009).
The SMMSi systems have operational characteristics similar to the commercial multi-split products manufactured by Mitsubishi, Samsung, Fujitsu and Daikin. As indicated above, DOE has already granted waivers for these products. The SMMSi system consists of
On February 16, 2011, Carrier also submitted an application for an interim waiver from the test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 for its SMMSi equipment. DOE determined that Carrier's application for interim waiver does not provide sufficient market, equipment price, shipments, and other manufacturer impact information to permit DOE to evaluate the economic hardship Carrier might experience absent a favorable determination on its application for an interim waiver. DOE understands, however, that if it did not issue an interim waiver, Carrier's products would not be tested and rated for energy consumption in the same manner as equivalent products for which DOE previously granted waivers. Furthermore, DOE has determined that it appears likely that Carrier's petition for waiver will be granted and that is desirable for public policy reasons to grant Carrier immediate relief pending a determination on the petition for waiver. DOE believes that it is likely Carrier's petition for waiver for the new SMMSi multi-split models will be granted because, as noted above, DOE has previously granted a number of waivers for similar product designs.
Therefore,
The application for interim waiver filed by Carrier is hereby granted for Carrier's SMMSi multi-split heat pumps, subject to the specifications and conditions below.
1. Carrier shall not be required to test or rate its SMMSi commercial multi-split products on the basis of the existing test procedures under 10 CFR 431.96, which incorporates by reference ARI 340/360-2004.
2. Carrier shall be required to test and rate its SMMSi commercial multi-split products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section IV(3), “Alternate test procedure.”
The interim waiver applies to the following basic model groups:
Indoor units, whose capacities range from 7,000 to 48,000 Btu/hr that are compatible with the outdoor units listed above:
This interim waiver is issued on the condition that the statements, representations, and documents provided by the petitioner are valid. DOE may revoke or modify this interim waiver at any time if it determines the factual basis underlying the petition for waiver is incorrect or the results from the alternate test procedure are unrepresentative of the basic models' true energy consumption characteristics.
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. Carrier may submit a new or amended petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps for which it seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that grant of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart T.
In responses to two petitions for waiver from Mitsubishi, DOE specified an alternate test procedure to provide a basis from which Mitsubishi could test and make valid energy efficiency representations for its R410A CITY MULTI products, as well as for its R22 multi-split products. Alternate test procedures related to the Mitsubishi petitions were published in the
DOE understands that existing testing facilities have limited ability to test multiple indoor units simultaneously. This limitation makes it impractical for manufacturers to test the large number of possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units for some variable refrigerant flow zoned systems. We further note that after DOE granted a waiver for Mitsubishi's R22 multi-split
Therefore, as a condition for granting this interim waiver to Carrier, DOE is including an alternate test procedure similar to those granted to Mitsubishi for its R22 and R410A products. This alternate test procedure will allow Carrier to test and make energy efficiency representations for its SMMSi products. DOE has applied a similar alternate test procedure to other waivers for similar residential and commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps manufactured by Mitsubishi (72 FR 17528, April 9, 2007); Samsung (72 FR 71387, Dec. 17, 2007); Fujitsu (72 FR 71383, Dec. 17, 2007); Daikin (73 FR 39680, July 10, 2008); Daikin (74 FR 15955, April 8, 2009); Daikin (74 FR 16193, April 9, 2009); Daikin (74 FR 16373, April 10, 2009); Mitsubishi (74 FR 66311, 66315, December 15, 2009) and LG (74 FR 66330, December 15, 2009).
The alternate test procedure developed in conjunction with the Mitsubishi waiver permits Carrier to designate a “tested combination” for each model of outdoor unit. The indoor units designated as part of the tested combination must meet specific requirements. For example, the tested combination must have from two to eight indoor units so that it can be tested in available test facilities. (The “tested combination” was originally defined to consist of one outdoor unit matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units. The maximum number of indoor units in a tested combination is increased in this instance from 5 to 8 to account for the fact that these larger-capacity products can accommodate a greater number of indoor units.) The tested combination must be tested according to the applicable DOE test procedure, as modified by the provisions of the alternate test procedure as set forth below. The alternate test procedure also allows manufacturers of such products to make valid and consistent representations of energy efficiency for their air-conditioning and heat pump products.
DOE is including the following waiver language in the interim waiver for Carrier's SMMSi commercial multi-split water-source heat pump models:
(1) The petition for waiver filed by Carrier Corporation is hereby granted as set forth in the paragraphs below.
(2) Carrier shall not be required to use existing test procedures to test or rate its SMMSi variable capacity multi-split heat pump products listed above, but shall be required to test and rate such products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in paragraph (3).
(3)
(A) Carrier shall be required to test the products listed in above according to the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps prescribed by DOE at 10 CFR 431.96, except that Carrier shall test a tested combination selected in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. For every other system combination using the same outdoor unit as the tested combination, Carrier shall make representations concerning the SMMSi products covered in this waiver according to the provisions of subparagraph (C) below.
(B) Tested combination. The term tested combination means a sample basic model comprised of units that are production units, or are representative of production units, of the basic model being tested. For the purposes of this waiver, the tested combination shall have the following features:
(1) The basic model of a variable refrigerant flow system used as a tested combination shall consist of one outdoor unit, with one or more compressors, that is matched with between two and five indoor units. (For systems with nominal cooling capacities greater than 150,000 Btu/h, as many as eight indoor units may be used, to enable testing of non-ducted indoor unit combinations). For multi-split systems, each of these indoor units shall be designed for individual operation.
(2) The indoor units shall—
(i) Represent the highest sales model family or another indoor model family if the highest sales model family does not provide sufficient capacity (see ii);
(ii) Together, have a nominal cooling capacity that is between 95% and 105% of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iii) Not, individually, have a nominal cooling capacity that is greater than 50% of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iv) Operate at fan speeds that are consistent with the manufacturer's specifications; and
(v) Be subject to the same minimum external static pressure requirement while being configurable to produce the same static pressure at the exit of each outlet plenum when manifolded as per § 2.4.1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M.
(C)
(1) For SMMSi combinations tested in accordance with this alternate test procedure, Carrier may make representations based on these test results.
(2) For SMMSi combinations that are not tested, Carrier may make representations of non-tested combinations at the same energy efficiency level as the tested combination. The outdoor unit must be the one used in the tested combination. The representations must be based on the test results for the tested combination. The representations may also be determined by an Alternative Rating Method approved by DOE.
Through today's notice, DOE announces receipt of the Carrier petition for waiver from the test procedures applicable to Carrier's SMMSi commercial multi-split heat pump products. For the reasons articulated above, DOE also grants Carrier an interim waiver from those procedures. As part of this notice, DOE is publishing Carrier's petition for waiver in its entirety. The petition contains no confidential information. Furthermore, today's notice includes an alternate test procedure that Carrier is required to follow as a condition of its interim waiver. In this alternate test procedure, DOE is defining a tested combination that Carrier could use in lieu of testing all retail combinations of its SMMSi multi-split heat pump products.
DOE is interested in receiving comments on the issues addressed in this notice. Pursuant to 10 CFR
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(a), Carrier Corporation (“Carrier”) respectfully petitions the Department of Energy (“DOE”) for a waiver of the test procedure set forth at 10 CFR 431.96,
Carrier is a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation. Carrier provides heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) systems, controls, services, and sustainable building solutions for residential, commercial, industrial, food service, and transportation applications. Carrier would like to initiate the marketing and sale of the SMMSi systems as early as March 2011. Carrier will import the systems from two of its joint ventures: Toshiba Carrier Corporation (Japan) and Toshiba Carrier Thailand Co. Ltd.
Carrier's SMMSi VRF multi-split products contain design characteristics that prevent testing of the system using the procedures incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 431.96, ARI Standard 340/360-2004. This standard does not provide a feasible method of testing and rating a system that: (i) Utilizes multiple indoor and outdoor units; and (ii) allows for the mixing of different types and capacities of indoor units within the same system. Carrier's products that are the subject of this petition and application involve 7 unique outdoor models
A waiver and interim waiver for Carrier's SMMSi systems are warranted for reasons cited previously in other applications for waiver for similar commercial multi-split air conditioning systems. The two key reasons are, first, that testing laboratories are unable to test products with so many indoor units (up to 38) connected to an outdoor system. Second, there are too many possible combinations of indoor and outdoor units to be feasibly tested. In addition, DOE has granted waivers to numerous other comparable commercial, multi-split VRF systems, including Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, 72 FR 17528 (Apr. 9, 2007); Samsung, 72 FR 71387 (Dec. 17, 2007); Fujitsu, 72 FR 71383 (Dec. 17, 2007); SANYO North America Corp., 75 FR 41845 (July 19, 2010); LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 74 FR 66330 (Dec. 15, 2009); and Daikin AC (Americas), 74 FR 16373 (Apr. 10, 2009).
Carrier seeks a waiver from the test procedures in 10 CFR 431.96 for the following basic models:
All outdoor units identified above are compatible for use with the below listed indoor units, whose capacities range from 7,000 to 48,000 Btu/hr:
Carrier's SMMSi VRF multi-split products allow for the connection of multiple indoor units to an outdoor system comprised of one or two outdoor units. These units contain highly efficient twin-rotary compressors and advanced vector-controlled inverters to allow for greater operating performance when operating under a constant load. This improves both energy efficiency and comfort levels. In addition, the products' infinite variable control adjusts compressor rotation speed in 0.1 Hz steps, which further helps to minimize energy loss when changing frequencies and also creates a comfortable environment subject to minimal temperature variations.
Carrier's newly developed VRF control ensures the right amount of cooling or heating to satisfy the unique demands of each room, regardless of the type of indoor unit used or the length of the pipes. Moreover, system layouts can use a maximum equivalent distance of up to 985 feet, and Carrier's products can support height differences of up to 130 feet between indoor units within a single system.
VRF multi-split technology will help the United States reduce the amount of energy required to heat and cool buildings. Carrier looks forward to introducing its SMMSi products to improve the control and comfort of end users and to help decrease the nation's overall energy usage.
As indicated above, DOE has previously granted waivers and interim waivers to other manufacturers of similar VRF multi-split equipment that share the same basic system characteristics as that of Carrier's SMMSi products.
Carrier's petition seeks a waiver from the applicable test procedures set forth at 10 CFR
To the best of Carrier's knowledge, the following manufacturers currently market similar VRF products within the United States:
Daikin AC (Americas), Inc.
Fujitsu General America, Inc.
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
SANYO North America Corp.
Carrier requests that DOE approve as an alternate test procedure the procedures outlined in the current AHRI Standard 1230,
Adopting Standard 1230 as an alternate test procedure would eliminate the need for Carrier to test the SMMSi system using two different testing protocols. If DOE applies something other than Standard 1230, Carrier would have to test its systems using: (i) AHRI Standard 1230 to receive AHRI certification and to show compliance with the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1; and (ii) whatever alternate test procedure that DOE requires as a condition of granting this waiver request. Third, given the requirements for varying interconnecting tube lengths with system capacity, the latest edition of Standard 1230 provides a more accurate comparison of the energy efficiency ratings of VRF products and non-VRF alternative systems than do the alternate procedures that DOE has previously applied in other waiver approvals.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 431.401(a)(2), Carrier also submits an Application for Interim Wavier of 10 CFR 431.96 and ARI Standard 340/360-2004 for the SMMSi VRF multi-split models listed in Section II above. Carrier's application should be granted for the following reasons.
First, Carrier is likely to succeed on its Petition for Wavier because there is no reasonable argument that ARI Standard 340/360-2004 can be applied to its SMMSi product class. Existing testing facilities are not designed to test multi-split VRF systems with so many indoor and outdoor units and possible combinations. Indeed, as explained above, DOE has granted similar petitions for waiver and applications for interim waiver from several companies based on the same rationale offered by Carrier in this Petition and Application. Those prior approvals confirm that the test procedures incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 431.96 do not adequately define uniform testing and rating methods for VRF multi-split products.
Second, Carrier is likely to suffer economic hardship and a competitive disadvantage if DOE does not grant its application for interim waiver. Other manufacturers of similar products have already received waivers and are able to market and distribute their VRF multi-split products. Without an interim waiver, Carrier will be unable to introduce its SMMSi product line in the United States in March 2011 as currently planned. A significant portion of Carrier's projected revenues depends on the timely introduction of this product line into the United States market. In the event that Carrier must await completion of DOE's waiver process, its revenues and market share will be negatively affected.
Finally, Carrier's application for interim waiver is supported by sound public policy reasons, as DOE recently recognized in granting a similar application: “[I]n those instances where
Carrier makes no request to DOE regarding the confidential treatment of any information contained in this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver.
Carrier respectfully requests that DOE grant a waiver and interim waiver from existing test procedures applicable to Carrier's SMMSi VRF multi-split systems and to apply the alternate testing procedures described above until such time as a representative test procedure is developed and adopted for such products. Otherwise, Carrier will not be able to compete effectively in the United States VRF market.
Given that Carrier would like to introduce its SMMSi product line in March 2011 and that DOE's regulations contemplate a decision on Carrier's Application for Interim Waiver within 15 business days, 10 CFR 431.401(e), Carrier would greatly appreciate a timely response to this letter request. To that end, we would be happy promptly to answer any questions that you might have and to provide you with any needed additional information.
Carrier certifies that all manufacturers listed above in Section V of this request have been notified by letter of this petition and application.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
Please include the project number (P-5679-031) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
By order dated March 17, 2011, in Docket No. ER11-2256-000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed staff to convene a technical conference regarding California Independent System Operator Corporation's (CAISO) Capacity Procurement Mechanism (CPM) and exceptional dispatch mitigation provisions.
The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss the issues raised by CAISO's proposed CPM compensation methodology and continuation of the existing exceptional dispatch market power mitigation provisions. A subsequent notice detailing the topics to be discussed will be issued in advance of the conference.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
All parties are permitted to attend. For more information on this conference, please contact Katheryn Hoke at
As noticed on March 22, 2011, in this docket the technical workshop on Form No. 549D required by Order No. 735-A will be scheduled for April 12, 2011. The present notice provides the Agenda for this technical workshop.
Those not able to attend in person may listen live to the workshop through a telephone bridge connection. Since a one-hour lunch break has been allocated during this workshop, interested people will need to hang up upon the announcement by the Moderator of the lunch break. If interested in the “Additional Question and Answer Period” scheduled for after lunch, callers need to call back in for that portion of the meeting.
The call-in information for the 9 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. portion of the workshop is:
• From within the DC area: 202-502-6888
• From outside the DC area: 1-877-857-1347
• Meeting ID Number: 2685
Callers may dial in 15 minutes before the start of the morning and afternoon sessions.
The after-lunch portion of the workshop is expected to run from 1:15 p.m. to 2 p.m., but may deviate depending upon the needs of the attendees. The call information for the after-lunch portion of the workshop is:
• From within the DC area: 202-502-6888
• From outside the DC area: 1-877-857-1347
• Meeting ID Number: 4734
For additional information, please contact James Sarikas at 202-502-6831 or
All times are approximate. The workshop may end earlier depending on the number of questions from the attendees.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-mail at
EPA ICR Number 1564.08; NSPS for Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Dc; was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0202; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1078.09; NSPS for Phosphate Rock Plants; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and NN; was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0111; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1053.10; NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Da; was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0023; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1158.10; NSPS for Rubber Tire Manufacturing; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and BBB; was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0156; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1086.09; NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, KKK and LLL, was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0120; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1587.11; State Operating Permit Regulations; 40 CFR part 70; was approved on 03/02/2011; OMB Number 2060-0243; expires on 04/30/2012; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1812.04; Annual Public Water Systems Compliance Report (Reinstatement); was approved on 03/03/2011; OMB Number 2020-0020; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1808.06; Environmental Impact Assessment of Nongovernmental Activities in Antarctica (Renewal); 40 CFR part 8; was approved on 03/04/2011; OMB Number 2020-0007; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0193.10; NESHAP for Beryllium; 40 CFR part 61, subparts A and C; was approved on 03/07/2011; OMB Number 2060-0092; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2072.04; NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing; 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and AAAAA; was approved on 03/09/2011; OMB Number 2060-0544; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1049.12; Notification of Episodic Releases of Oil and Hazardous Substances (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 110, 117 and 302, was approved on 03/09/2011; OMB Number 2050-0046; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 1249.09; Requirements for Certified Applicators Using 1080 Collars for Livestock Protection; was approved on 03/09/2011; OMB Number 2070-0074; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2364.03; Alternative Affirmative Defense Requirements for Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel (Renewal); 40 CFR 80.613; was approved on 03/14/2011; OMB Number 2060-0639; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 2411.01; NSPS and NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries Sector Residual Risk and Technology Review (New Collection); was approved on 03/28/2011; OMB Number 2060-0657; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 0657.10; NSPS for Graphic Arts Industry; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and QQ; was approved on 03/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0105; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1063.11; NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and O; was approved on 03/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0035; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1442.21; Land Disposal Restrictions (Renewal); 40 CFR part 268; was approved on 03/29/2011; OMB Number 2050-0085; expires on 03/31/2014; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0783.58; Motor Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Economy Compliance: Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles (Change Worksheet); 40 CFR parts 85 and 86; 40 CFR 85.1901-85.1908; 40 CFR 86.1845-86.1848; 40 CFR part 600, subparts E and F; was approved on 03/29/2011; OMB Number 2060-0104; expires on 08/31/2012; Approved without change.
EPA ICR Number 0940.23; Ambient Air Quality Surveillance (Proposal for CO NAAQS); in 40 CFR part 58; OMB filed comment on 03/02/2011.
EPA ICR Number 1716.07; NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations; in 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and JJ; OMB filed comment on 03/07/2011.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 9, 2011.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0372 to (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30813), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0372, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart W, and 40 CFR part 63, Subpart A, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 9, 2011.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0364, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia A. Williams, Office of Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Mail Code: 2223A; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30813), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0364, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
It should be noted that the wage rates in this ICR have been updated resulting in an overall increase in the labor cost.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 7, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Robert W. Vanderpool, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, Process Modeling Research Branch, Mail Drop D205-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-7877; facsimile number: 919-541-1153; e-mail:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2005-0530, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
A response to this collection of information is voluntary, but it is required to obtain the benefit of EPA designation under 40 CFR part 53. Submission of some information that is claimed by the applicant to be confidential business information may be necessary to make a reference or equivalent method determination. The confidentiality of any submitted information identified as confidential business information by the applicant will be protected in full accordance with 40 CFR part 53.15 and all applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
A comprehensive review of ongoing and expected NAAQS reviews encompassing this ICR's period of performance determined that there is no expected change in the respondent burden, either with regards to labor hours or costs. Similarly, there is no expected change in the Agency burden (either hours or costs) associated with any expected changes in NAAQS regulations during this ICR's period of performance.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 9, 2011.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0354, to (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0354, which is available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is (202) 566-1752.
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required quarterly.
The capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs remain the same. The increase in cost to respondents is due to updating of the labor rates to reflect the most recent available estimates.
In accordance with Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to make its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies public. Historically, EPA met this mandate by publishing weekly notices of availability of EPA comments, which includes a brief summary of EPA's comment letters, in the
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of meeting.
March 15, 2011 minutes—Open Session.
(No substantive discussion of the above items is anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of the ASC requests that an item be moved to the discussion agenda.)
Appraisal Foundation December 2010 Grant Reimbursement Request.
Appraisal Foundation 2010 Grant Reprogramming Reimbursement Request.
California Compliance Review.
Colorado Compliance Review.
Michigan Compliance Review.
E-mail your name, organization and contact information
You may also send a written request via U.S. Mail, fax or commercial carrier to the Executive Director of the ASC, 1401 H Street, NW., Ste 760, Washington, DC 20005. Your request must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., ET, on the Monday prior to the meeting. If that Monday is a Federal holiday, then your request must be received 4:30 p.m., ET on the previous Friday. Attendees must have a valid government-issued photo ID and must agree to submit to reasonable security measures. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of meeting.
March 15, 2011 minutes—Closed Session.
Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.
Federal Maritime Commission.
April 13, 2011—10 a.m.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The meeting will be an Open Session.
1. Update on Situation at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.
2. Staff Review and Recommendation Concerning Activities that May Be Conducted without Further Agreement Filings Under Commission Rule 46 CFR 535.408.
3. Discussion of Current Trade Conditions and Next Steps on Commission's Fact Finding 26 Recommendations.
4. Discussion of Level of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
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 25, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
2.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will meet Wednesday, May 11, 2011, from 8:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., in the Staats Briefing Room (7C13) of the Government Accountability Office building, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will hold a meeting to discuss updates and revisions of the 2007 Revision of Government Auditing Standards. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public will be provided an opportunity to address the Council with a brief (five-minute) presentation in the afternoon on matters directly related to the proposed update and revision.
Any interested person who plans to attend the meeting as an observer must contact Jennifer Allison, Executive Assistant, 202-512-3423. A form of picture identification must be presented to the GAO Security Desk on the day of the meeting to obtain access to the GAO building. You must enter the building at the G Street entrance. For further information, please contact Mrs. Allison. Please check the Government Auditing Standards Web page (
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions
1. Under Chapter AMS, Office of Finance, Section AMS.20 Functions, Paragraph 3, Office of Program Management and Systems Policy (AMS2), retitle all references to the “Division of Systems Policy, Payment Integrity and Audit Resolution (AMS22)” as the “Division of Systems Policy and Audit Resolution (AMS22).”
2. Under Chapter AMS, Office of Finance, Section AMS.20 Functions, Paragraph 3, Office of Program Management and Systems Policy (AMS2), Section b, Division of Systems Policy and Audit Resolution (AMS22), delete Section “(2)” and all associated subsections (
3. Under Chapter AMS, Office of Finance, Section AMS.10 Organization, insert the following new office after the Office of Program Management and Systems Policy, “Office of Program Integrity Coordination (AMS3).”
4. Under Chapter AMS, Office of Finance, Section AMS.20 Functions, insert the following after Paragraph 3:
4.
The Office of Program Integrity Coordination (OPIC) consists of the following components:
• Division of Program Integrity Assessment and Improvement (AMS31).
• Division of Outreach, Communications, and Training (AMS32).
• Division of Payment Accuracy Improvement (AMS33).
a.
b.
c.
5. Delegation of Authority. Pending further redelegation, directives or orders made by the Secretary or ASFR, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 9, 2011: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by June 7, 2011.
1.
2.
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
We are, however, requesting an emergency review of the information collection referenced below. In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following requirements for emergency review. We are requesting an emergency review because the collection of this information is needed before the expiration of the normal time limits under OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.13. This is necessary to ensure compliance with an initiative of the Administration. We cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures due to an unexpected event as stated in 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(iii). The use of the normal clearance procedures would cause a statutory deadline to be missed.
1.
By allowing coverage for inpatient admission for emergency psychiatric treatment otherwise prohibited by the Medicaid institutions for mental diseases exclusion, the Demonstration may improve access to appropriate psychiatric care, improve quality of care for Medicaid patients, and encourage greater availability of inpatient psychiatric beds, thereby reducing the necessity of psychiatric boarding.
As a condition for receiving payment under this Demonstration, a State shall be responsible for collecting and reporting information to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) about the conduct of the Demonstration in the State for the purposes of providing Federal oversight and the evaluation of the Demonstration and required to cooperate with the CMS evaluation team. CMS is also required to submit to Congress, a recommendation as to whether the Demonstration project should be continued after December 31, 2013, and expanded on a national basis.
The statute requires that a State seeking to participate in this Demonstration project shall submit an application that includes such information, provisions, and assurances necessary to assess the State's ability to conduct the Demonstration as compared with other State applicants. The State Medical Director will submit the Demonstration application proposal.
CMS is requesting OMB review and approval of this collection by
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site address at
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden or any other aspect of these collections of information requirements. However, as noted above, comments on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements must be mailed and/or faxed to the designees referenced below by May 4, 2011.
1.
2.
3.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Application for Participation in the Medical Device Fellowship Program” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-5156,
In the
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 2114(c)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act, notice is hereby given of the reasons for not conducting a rule-making proceeding for adding Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) to the Vaccine Injury Table at this time.
Written comments are not being solicited.
Geoffrey Evans, M.D., Director, Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Room 11C-26, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone number (301) 443-6593.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, title III of Public Law 99-660 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
The statute authorizing the VICP provides for the inclusion of additional vaccines in the VICP when they are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine administration to children. See section 2114(e)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(e)(2). Consistent with section 13632(a)(3) of Public Law 103-66, the regulations governing the VICP provide that such vaccines will be included in the Table as of the effective date of an excise tax to provide funds for the payment of compensation with respect to such vaccines. 42 CFR 100.3(c)(5). The statute authorizing the VICP also authorizes the Secretary to create and modify a list of injuries,
(A) receipt of any recommendation of the Commission, or
(B) 180 days after the date of the referral to the Commission, whichever occurs first, the Secretary shall conduct a rule-making proceeding on the matters proposed in the petition or publish in the
The petition requests that the Secretary amend the Table to include Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) as an injury following certain vaccines. The petition asserts that “[e]very drug company admits that GBS is linked to many different vaccines including influenza, meningitis, and cervical cancer [human papillomavirus].” The petitioner asserts that her mother received the seasonal influenza vaccine, and was subsequently diagnosed with GBS. Other than the assertion cited, the petition does not cite scientific support, nor indicate specifically for which vaccines GBS should be added as an injury, nor indicate any appropriate time-frame.
Nonetheless, the Secretary takes very seriously proposals to modify the Table. Prior to receipt of the petition, in 2008, the Secretary contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review the epidemiological, clinical, and biological evidence regarding adverse health events associated with specific vaccines covered by the VICP. The vaccines to be reviewed are:
• Varicella vaccines,
• influenza vaccines,
• hepatitis B vaccine,
• human papillomavirus vaccines,
• hepatitis A vaccines,
• meningococcal vaccines,
• measles-mumps rubella vaccines, and
• diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccines.
The IOM committee will author a consensus report with conclusions on the evidence bearing on causality and the evidence regarding the biological mechanisms that underlie specific theories for how a specific vaccine is related to a specific adverse event. In particular, the report will contain updated findings on the possible causal relationship between certain VICP-covered vaccines and GBS, as well as other possible injuries/medical conditions. The Secretary expects to receive the IOM consensus report in early summer. After receipt of the consensus report, and a careful analysis of the important scientific and policy considerations raised by the findings in the report, the Secretary will consider whether to engage in a rule-making proceeding to modify the Table. As required by law, any such rule-making proceeding would include notice and opportunity for a public hearing and at least 180 days of public comment. See section 2114(c)(1) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c)(1). Also as required by law, the Secretary would provide to the Commission a copy of the proposed regulation or revision, request recommendations and comments by the Commission, and afford the Commission at least 90 days to make such recommendations. See section 2114(d) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(d).
The Secretary intends to consider whether to engage in a rule-making process with the benefit of the important scientific information soon to be provided by the IOM; to begin the lengthy process without such additional information would not result in rule-making founded on the best and most recent scientific knowledge. For these reasons, it has been determined not to conduct a rule-making proceeding based on the petition received at this time.
In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Center for Scientific Review Advisory Council (CSRAC), formerly National Institutes of Health Peer Review Committee, was renewed for an additional two-year period on March 31, 2011.
It is determined that the CSRAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
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/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose 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 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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental assessment (EA) for Protection Island and San Juan Islands National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage these refuges for the next 15 years.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI/EA by any of the following methods. You may request a CD-ROM or an electronic copy.
Kevin Ryan, Project Leader, 360-457-8451,
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Protection Island and San Juan Islands NWRs. We started this process through a notice in the
Protection Island NWR is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca near the entrance to Discovery Bay in Jefferson County, Washington. It includes 659 acres of land and tideland. Protection Island NWR was established to provide habitat for a diversity of birds, with particular emphasis on nesting bald eagles and seabirds, as well as to protect the hauling-out area for marine mammals. It has one of the largest colonies of rhinoceros auklets in North America. The Refuge also provides opportunities for scientific research and wildlife-oriented education and interpretation.
Most of the San Juan Islands NWR consists of rocks, reefs, and islands scattered throughout the San Juan Archipelago. Two islands, Smith and Minor, are located south of the archipelago within the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Refuge consists of approximately 449 acres in San Juan, Skagit, Island, and Whatcom Counties, Washington. Most (353 acres) of San Juan Islands NWR is designated wilderness known as the San Juan Islands Wilderness Area. San Juan Islands NWR was established to facilitate management of migratory birds, including serving as a breeding ground and winter sanctuary for native birds. It was also intended to be a refuge for other wildlife. This refuge is particularly important to breeding black oystercatchers, cormorants, and harbor seals.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP for Protection Island and San Juan Islands NWRs in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the EA that accompanied the draft CCP.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Protection Island and San Juan Islands Refuges for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as we described in the final CCP, is the foundation for the CCP, with slight modifications.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
Our draft CCP and our EA (75 FR 51098) addressed several issues. To address these, we developed and evaluated the following alternatives:
Under Alternative A, the refuges would continue with current management, which focuses on stewardship, including removing unnecessary roads and human structures; allowing natural processes to occur with minimal human intervention; monitoring wildlife species; and working with partners to reduce the risk of oil spills, clean up marine debris, and educate boaters to minimize human-caused wildlife disturbance. Recreational activities would continue as they have in the past and be facilitated through a State Parks partnership.
This Alternative would continue many of the activities in Alternative A, but would also include a greater number of active habitat management projects, such as removal of deer from Protection Island to enhance seabird nesting
This Alternative is very similar to Alternative B. However, under Alternative C there would be fewer acres of native habitat restoration, as well as fewer research studies and surveys. Camping would continue, but with fewer campsites on Matia Island. Turn Island would be limited to day-use only. Compared to Alternative B, fewer and mostly smaller signs would be used in Alternative C to identify closed refuge islands and reduce human-caused wildlife disturbance.
We requested comments on the draft CCP and the EA for Protection Island and San Juan Islands NWRs from August 13, 2010, to September 17, 2010 (75 FR 51098). We sent notification to over 700 individuals and organizations on our mailing list for this CCP, provided the draft CCP and EA on the Regional Web site, and provided a press release to local media. We received over 40 letters and e-mails from the public. Based on a thorough evaluation of the public comments we received, we slightly modified the CCP/EA. Changes include modifications to several CCP strategies, including:
• We will begin coordination with Treaty Tribes regarding step-down planning for deer removal on Protection Island;
• We will perform additional monitoring of visitors' use before deciding whether to initiate a new camping reservation system;
• We added several potential partners to Appendix G; and
• We updated Appendix E, the Integrated Pest Management Program, with information from a new Service policy (569 FW 1).
After considering the comments we received, we have selected Alternative B for implementation. Under Alternative B, the Service and partners will:
• Protect, maintain, and where feasible, restore habitats—including shoreline, sandy bluffs, grasslands and balds, forests and woodlands, and wetlands—for priority species, including seabirds, shorebirds, bald eagles, marine mammals, and endemic plants.
• Minimize human-caused wildlife disturbance on and near closed refuge islands, rocks, and shorelines.
• Manage invasive species and State- and county-listed noxious weeds.
• Survey and protect paleontological and cultural resources.
• Increase inventory and monitoring efforts.
• Encourage and facilitate research that addresses refuge management questions.
• Design and implement a site plan for refuge administration and research facilities on Protection Island in order to reduce the human “footprint,” improve refuge management capability, improve research coordination, and reduce liquid fuel consumption by expanding solar power capabilities.
• Reduce the number of campsites on Turn Island and limit camping on both Turn and Matia Islands to visitors arriving by human-powered boats.
• Enhance and increase on- and off-refuge environmental education and interpretation, as well as wildlife observation and photography opportunities.
• Increase outreach to boaters, schoolchildren, local residents, and tourists.
• Use signs and other management techniques efficiently and effectively on wilderness rocks and islands to assist in maintaining their wildlife and intrinsic values while minimizing impacts to wilderness character.
In addition to the methods in
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Public Law 106-148, the NCGMP and NGGDPP Advisory Committee will meet on June 22nd and June 23rd, 2011, in room 3A417 of the U.S. Geological Survey Headquarters building, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192. The Advisory Committee, comprising representatives from Federal agencies, State agencies, academic institutions, and private companies, shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey on planning and implementation of the geologic mapping and data preservation programs.
The Committee will hear updates on progress of the NCGMP toward fulfilling the purposes of the National Geological Mapping Act of 1992; the Federal, State, and education components of the NCGMP; and the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.
June 22-23, 2011, commencing at 8:30 a.m. on June 22 and adjourning by 5 p.m. on June 23.
Stephanie Brown, U.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 908, National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6948.
Meetings of the National Cooperative Geological Mapping Program and National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Advisory Committee are open to the Public.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency, in cooperation with the Pueblo of Jemez, intends to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the proposed approval of a 70.277 acre fee-to-trust transfer and casino project to be located within Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Details on the proposed action, location, and areas of environmental concern addressed in the DEIS are provided in the
Written comments on the DEIS must arrive by May 23, 2011. The public hearing on the DEIS will be held on Saturday, April 30, 2011, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., or until the last public comment is received.
You may mail or hand-carry written comments to William Walker, Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southwest Regional Office, 1001 Indian School Road, NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104. The public hearing will be held at the Loma Linda Elementary School, 1451 Donaldson Avenue, Anthony, New Mexico 88021.
Priscilla Wade (505) 563-3417.
The Pueblo of Jemez proposes that 70.277 acres, within a 102.13-acre tract of land, be taken into trust and that a temporary and a permanent casino be constructed on these trust lands. In addition, a hotel is proposed for construction on the 31.855-acres remaining in fee status. The proposed site is located on the southwest corner of Interstate 10 and New Mexico State Road 404 (O'Hara Road), adjacent to the City of Anthony in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The Pueblo of Jemez, through its Tribal Gaming Enterprise, will operate the casino facility. The BIA is the lead agency for the DEIS on this project. There are no cooperating agencies. A public scoping meeting for the DEIS was held by the BIA on March 16, 2005, in Anthony, New Mexico.
The Pueblo proposes to build and operate a 24,000-square foot temporary casino while building a permanent gaming facility with a planned 103,500 total square feet on trust-acquired land that is adjacent to a proposed 90,000 square-foot hotel facility located on fee land. Access to the facilities would be from O'Hara Road and the west frontage road along I-10. The temporary and permanent casinos and hotel would include associated parking.
Environmental issues addressed in the DEIS include land and water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, socio-economic conditions, resource use patterns, public services, noise, hazardous materials, visual resources, environmental justice, growth-inducing effects, cumulative impacts, and unavoidable adverse effects. Alternatives to the proposed project considered in the DEIS include: (1) Trust Acquisition with temporary and permanent casino, and hotel construction; (2) Trust Acquisition with permanent casino and hotel construction; and (3) No Action.
•
•
This notice is published pursuant to Sec. 1503.1 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500 through 1508) and Sec. 46.305 of the Department of Interior Regulations (43 CFR part 46), implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment for the Proposed China Mountain Wind Project in south central Idaho and northeast Nevada and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS and Draft RMP Amendment within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of the availability of these documents in the
You may submit comments related to the Proposed China Mountain Wind Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the Proposed China Mountain Wind Project Draft EIS and Draft RMP Amendment are available in the Jarbidge Field Office at the above address or electronically on the Web site shown above.
Copies of the Draft EIS and Draft RMP Amendment are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
• Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, Public Room, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709;
• Bureau of Land Management, Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301;
• Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Public Room, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89502; and
• Bureau of Land Management, Wells Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada 89801.
China Mountain Wind Project Manager, Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, telephone (208) 735-2072. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
China Mountain Wind, LLC (CMW), which is owned by RES America Developments, Inc. (RES) and Nevada Power Company (NV Energy), is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain a commercial wind power electric generation facility capable of generating up to 425 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Up to 170 wind turbines, each having a generating capacity between 2.3 and 3.0 MW, would be installed on an area covering approximately 30,700 acres in the Jarbidge Foothills, an area located southwest of Rogerson, Idaho, and west of Jackpot, Nevada. The proposed project area includes 4,700 acres of public land administered by the BLM Elko District, Wells Field Office, in northeastern Nevada, 15,300 acres of public land administered by the BLM Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office, in south central Idaho, 2,000 acres of State of Idaho lands, and 8,700 acres of private lands in south central Idaho and northeast Nevada.
The proposal involves the issuance of a BLM right-of-way (ROW) grant for the facilities located on public lands. CMW's application for a ROW grant from the BLM for this project triggered the preparation of an EIS under NEPA. The BLM is responsible for evaluating the ROW grant across Federally managed lands by authority of FLPMA. The Draft EIS has been developed to meet the standards for analysis required for compliance with Federal regulations, and the Idaho State BLM has been designated as the review lead. Through internal and external scoping, the BLM has identified the following issues for analysis: Fish and wildlife including special status species, cultural resources, visual resources, air quality, soils, vegetation, noise, water quality, public access; recreation, wildfire management, hazardous materials, social values, and wilderness characteristics. A ROW grant for the proposed action is in conformance with the 1985 Wells RMP. It is not in conformance with the 1987 Jarbidge RMP provisions regarding Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes, protection of threatened, endangered,
Amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP would be required if a decision is made to approve seven of the nine alternatives identified in the Draft EIS. Currently, the 1987 Jarbidge RMP is undergoing a separate revision process. A Draft Jarbidge RMP/EIS for that revision was made available to the public on September 3, 2010, for a 90-day comment period. On October 22, 2010, the Idaho State Director extended the comment period for 60 days. The extended comment period closed January 31, 2011. If the Jarbidge RMP revision is adopted prior to a decision on the China Mountain Wind Project, the project proposal may need to be analyzed against the landscape-scale decisions made in that document.
Nine alternatives are analyzed in this Draft EIS/Draft RMP Amendment. These alternatives were developed in response to issues and concerns raised during the NEPA scoping period that took place from April 21, 2008 to July 21, 2008 and involved three public meetings that took place in Twin Falls, Idaho, and Elko, and Jackpot, Nevada. Public and agency concerns include potential impacts to sensitive species and their habitats, cultural resources, visual resources, public access, and socio-economic resources.
• Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, reflects existing RMP decisions and would result in denying the ROW application.
• Alternative B1 is the applicant's proposed action as submitted in its ROW application and associated plan of development. This alternative would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP: To change the VRM Class in certain parts of the proposed project area from II and III to IV; to remove stipulations, in the proposed project area only, regarding sensitive animal species and crucial habitats that specify seasonal occupancy restrictions for various sensitive species; to modify a stipulation that protects threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species from disturbance related to construction activities such that it would no longer include sensitive plant species in the proposed project area; and to remove a stipulation, in the proposed project area only, that would preclude project facilities within 500 feet of streams.
• Alternative B2 is a two-phase alternative with three different iterations of Phase I, B2a, B2b, and B2c, which are based on the applicant's proposal and the avoidance of various wildlife habitats. A phased approach would allow the BLM to monitor the impacts of Phase I on wildlife prior to constructing the entire project. Phasing would allow the BLM to monitor and confirm that impacts are as predicted in the impact analysis. Under this alternative, monitoring results would be used to determine whether unanticipated impacts occurred as a result of Phase I. If unanticipated impacts occur, the BLM would conduct appropriate NEPA analysis and adjust requirements prior to issuing a notice to proceed to construct Phase II. Alternative B2a would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as described under Alternative B1 above. Alternatives B2b and B2c would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as described under Alternative B1 for VRM and sensitive plants. In addition, an amendment to the stipulations regarding sensitive animal species, crucial habitats, and water resources that would allow exemptions to the restrictions in the stipulations during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed project on a case-by-case basis subject to certain conditions would be required. This amendment would also remove these same restrictions as they apply to routine daily maintenance only.
• Alternative C is a modification of the applicant's proposed action which seeks to reduce impacts to sage-grouse and bats by not constructing turbines in areas within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks and a high bat use area. This alternative would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as described above for Alternatives B2b and B2c.
• Alternative D is a modified version of Alternative C which seeks to further reduce impacts to sage-grouse by eliminating turbine construction in an area of known sage-grouse movements. This alternative would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as described above for Alternatives B2b and B2c.
• Alternative E would be a modification of the applicant's proposed action which would comply with all RMP decisions from the 1987 Jarbidge RMP and the 1985 Wells RMP by eliminating turbines from areas within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks, eliminating turbines from areas of VRM Class II, precluding construction and maintenance activities during times seasonally restricted for various wildlife resources, and eliminating project facilities within 500 feet of streams.
• Alternative F is a modification of the applicant's proposed action which seeks to reduce impacts to cultural resources by eliminating turbine placement in areas with high concentrations of cultural resources and areas of known Native American religious significance. This alternative would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP as described above for alternatives B2b and B2c.
In addition, 11 alternatives were considered in the Draft EIS but eliminated from detailed study. These alternatives did not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. The BLM has not identified a preferred alternative for the project as one does not exist. A preferred project alternative will be identified in the Final EIS per Council on Environmental Quality requirements. The BLM has identified Alternatives B2b, B2c, C, D, and F, which would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as the preferred planning alternatives, as required by 43 CFR 1610.4-7.
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy the public involvement process for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3)). Native American Tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy, and Tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets.
Following the public comment period, comments will be used to prepare the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS. The BLM will respond to each substantive comment by making appropriate revisions to the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. A Notice of Availability of the Proposed RMP Plan Amendment/Final EIS will be published in the
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 1506.10 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Celatom Mine Expansion Project and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Celatom Mine Expansion Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Written comments may also be hand-delivered to the BLM Burns District Office at the address shown above.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available at the Burns District Office at the address listed above and electronically at the following Web site:
For further information contact William Dragt, Celatom Mine Expansion Project Lead, telephone (541) 573-448-4400; address 28910 Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738; or e-mail
EP Minerals (EPM), formally known as EaglePicher Minerals, operates a diatomaceous earth mine complex (Celatom Mine Complex), approximately 50 miles east of Burns and 60 miles west of Vale, Oregon. The Celatom Mine Complex currently consists of three open-pit mines: Kelley Field (on BLM-administered land), Section 36 (on State land), and Beede Desert (on private land) in Harney and Malheur Counties, Oregon.
Existing EPM mining operations on BLM-administered land in the Project Area were described in a Mine Plan of Operations (MPO) submitted by EPM to the BLM in 1984.
The total MPO area was 1,634 acres. The BLM approved the MPO after completion of an Environmental Assessment in 1985 (BLM 1985). Existing EPM stockpile operations on 35 acres of BLM-administered land at the Vines Hill Stockpile Area (VHSA) approximately 14 miles west of Vale, Oregon, were described in an MPO submitted by EPM and approved by the Vale District BLM in 1986 (BLM 1986). Existing EPM mining operations on private and State land in the Project Area and EPM mill operations on private land approximately 7 miles west of Vale operate under county and State permits. During preparation of this EIS, EPM is authorized to continue operations within the Project Area on BLM-administered land as approved by BLM in 1985, at the VHSA as approved by BLM in 1986, and on private and State lands permitted by county and State agencies.
In 2008, EPM submitted an MPO to the BLM for 12,640 acres. The MPO area includes expanded mining operations on 1,131 acres of BLM administered lands which would be disturbed for decades plus exploration and sampling on 250 acres which would be disturbed for several years and then reclaimed. The remaining 11,259 acres in the MPO area lies between the mines. This area will be largely undisturbed by mining activities except for 5 acres for a new connector road and 250 acres to be used for exploration and sampling. Except for safety considerations, this area also remains open to BLM's multiple uses. Due to the size of the proposed operations, the BLM determined preparation of an EIS is necessary to comply with the requirements of the NEPA. The Draft EIS analyzes proposed activities on BLM-administered land and cumulative effects from proposed activities on State-administered and private land, all within the project boundary. This Draft EIS would analyze EPM's proposed MPO as well as changes or conditions necessary to meet the performance standards of 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3809.420 to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. The proposed operations associated with the project include:
(1) Expanding operations: At the Kelly Field area, expand mining operations to 72.5 acres of BLM-administered land; in Section 36, expand mining operations on State-administered land; at Beede Desert, construct two new roads to connect Hidden Valley and Section 36 and establish access from Hidden Valley north to Eagle; and, at Puma claims, expand operations on private land to 5 acres.
(2) Developing new mining operations on BLM-administered land on 225 acres at Hidden Valley, 462.5 acres in North Kelly Field, 50 acres in Section 25, and 286 acres in Eagle.
(3) Exploratory drilling on 200 acres of BLM-administered land, as well as development drilling, sampling, trenching, and bulk sampling on 50 acres of BLM-administered land within the project boundary. Exploration and subsequent trenching and bulk sampling would be conducted to delineate boundaries of known ore reserves and to explore for new deposits. These activities could occur on BLM-administered lands anywhere within the Project Area. Activities under the Proposed Action, including final reclamation, would be conducted over the course of approximately 50 years. EPM proposes no changes to the permitted operations at VHSA.
The proposed types of expansion of mining operations and development of new mining operations in the Project Area include open pit mines, roads within the mine operations areas, and other operations such as stock piling and ancillary features such as service areas.
A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the Celatom Mine Expansion Project was published in the
Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses and e-mail addresses of respondents will be available for public review and disclosure at the above BLM address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to inform the public and interested State and local government officials of the filing of Plats of Survey in Nevada.
David D. Morlan, Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 775-861-6541. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
1. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 8, 2010:
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary and the subdivision of section 31, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 31, Township 17 North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 886, was accepted April 6, 2010. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
2. The Plats of Survey of the following described lands were officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 15, 2010:
The plat, in two (2) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of the Fourth Standard Parallel North through a portion of Range 63 East, a portion of the west boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 6 and 7, and metes-and-bounds surveys of portions of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway, Township 20 North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 857, was accepted on April 13, 2010.
The plat, in five (5) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 12, 25 and 36, and metes-and-bounds surveys of portions of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway, Township 21 North, Range 63 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 857, was accepted on April 13, 2010. These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
3. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on April 29, 2010:
The plat, in five (5) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 11, and metes-and-bounds surveys of portions of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway, Township 22 North, Range 63 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 867, was accepted on April 27, 2010. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
4. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada, on September 1, 2010:
The plat, in two (2) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south and west boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines and a portion of the subdivision-of-section lines of sections 30 and 33, and the further subdivision of sections 30 and 33, Township 15 North, Range 20 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 874, was accepted August 31, 2010. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the U.S. Forest Service.
5. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on September 30, 2010:
The plat, in five (5) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, metes-and-bounds surveys of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway and metes-and-bounds survey of portions of the Cherry Creek Station Grounds, Township 23 North, Range 63 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 869, was accepted September 29, 2010. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
6. The Plat of Survey of the following described lands was officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on January 7, 2011:
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey of the Second Standard Parallel South, through portions of Ranges 61 and 62 East; and a dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary of Township 9 South, Range 61 East; and the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 4, 5 and 6, Township 9 South, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 877, was accepted on January 6, 2011. This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
7. The Plats of Survey of the following described lands were officially filed at the Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada on February 4, 2011:
The plat, in four (4) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and metes-and-bounds surveys of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway, Township 24 North, Range 63 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 880, was accepted on January 21, 2011.
The plat, in three (3) sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of section 7, and metes-and-bounds surveys of portions of the easterly and westerly right-of-way lines of the Nevada Northern Railway, Township 24 North, Range 64 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 880, was accepted on January 21, 2011. These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of the Bureau of Land Management.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the east and north boundaries of Township 18 South, Range 59 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 881, was accepted on January 21, 2011.
The plat, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary and a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 25, 26 and 27, Township 18 South, Range 60 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 881, was accepted on January 21, 2011.
The plat, representing the entire survey record of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary of Township 18 South, Range 62 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, under Group No. 882, was accepted on January 21, 2011. These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The above-listed surveys are now the basic record for describing the lands for all authorized purposes. These surveys have been placed in the open files in the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office and are available to the public as a matter of information. Copies of the surveys and related field notes may be furnished to the public upon payment of the appropriate fees.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2010 (75 F.R. 60814) and determined on January 4, 2011 that it would conduct expedited reviews (76 FR 5205).
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on April 4, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4222 (April 2011), entitled
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 15, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The following parties have changed their names: Abiba Systems to Abiba Systems Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka, INDIA; Sopra India Pvt, Ltd to Aircel Limited., Guragon, Haryana, INDIA; AIST ISP to ZAO `AIST', Togliatti, RUSSIA; Asis TP SAC to Asis Technology Partners S.A.C., Lima, PERU; Axial to Axial Sp.z.o.o., Warszawa, POLAND; Technology to Birdstep Technology, Espoo, FINLAND; Ushacomm India Pvt. Ltd to Bonsai Network India Pvt Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal, INDIA; CA to CA Technologies, Inc., Portsmouth, NH; ONO to CABLEUROPA S.A.U.(ONO), Madrid, SPAIN; Cariden Technologies to Cariden Technologies, Inc., Mountain View, CA; Cogent Defence & Security Networks to Cassidian Systems (formerly Cogent Defence and Security System), Newport, South Wales, UNITED KINGDOM; Celcom (Malaysia) Sdh Bhd to Celcom Axiata Berhad, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; Enovia to Dessault Systemes Enovia Corp., Lowell, MA; Dialog Telkom PLC to Dialog Axiata PLC, Colombo, SRI LANKA; A Principals, Inc. to EA Principals, Inc., Alexandria, VA; ri to ESRI, Redlands, CA; Global Village Telecom to GVT; Hello Axiata Company Limited to Hello Axiata Company Ltd., Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh, CAMBODIA; HughesTelematics to HughesTelematics, Inc., Atlanta, GA; Inducta to Inducta d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA; Infinite Computer Solutions to Infinite Infosoft Services Pvt, Ltd, Guragon, INDIA; ING to ING Bank N.V., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; KPN Group Belgium to KPN International, Dusseldorf, GERMANY; Laboratory for Telecomm-Faculty of Elect. Eng. to Laboratory for Telecomm-Faculty of Elect. Eng. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA; Leonid Consulting to Leonid Systems, Washington, DC; Network Critical to Network Critical, LLC, Buffalo, NY; imsoft to Nimsoft, Campbell, CA; Northrop Grumman to North Grumman Corporation-(Information Systems, Defense Enterprise Solutions), McLean, VA; IPDR Technologies, LLC to OpenVault., Golden, CO; Corrigent Systems to Orckit-Corrigent, Tel-Aviv, IS, ISRAEL; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited PTCL, Islamabad, PAKISTAN; PT Excelcomindo Pratama, Tbk to PT XL Axiata Tbk., Bandung, INDONESIA; SMI Technologies to Quindell Enterprise Solutions, Wickham, Fareham, UNITED KINGDOM; SAPO to SAPO (PT Comunicacoes), Lisbon, PORTUGAL; Sevone to SevOne, Inc., Newark, DE; Smart Communications to SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Makati City, NCR, PHILIPPINES; ybase, an SAP Company to Sybase, an SAP Company, Dublin, CA; Telconet to Telconet S.A., Guayaquil, Guayas, ECUADOR; Cloudscaling to The Cloudscaling Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA; TIBCO Software to TIBCO Software Inc, Palo Alto, CA; True Corporation to True Corporation Public Company Limited, Bangkok, THAILAND; Ultimate Software Group to Ultimate Software, Weston, FL; United telecommunications services to United Telecommunication Services, Willemstad, Curacao, NETHERLANDS ANTILLES; Ventelo Bedrift AS to Ventelo Networks AS, Oslo, NORWAY.
The following parties have withdrawn from this venture: 4STARS Ltd., Zagreb, CROATIA; CAN, Inc., Concord, NC; AIST Limited, Stanmore, Middlesex, UNITED KINGDOM; Analysys Mason, London, UNITED KINGDOM; ARGELA Technologies, Istanbul, N/A, TURKEY; BTG, Driebergen, NETHERLANDS; CBOSS Middle East FZ-LLC, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Ciminko, Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG; Cloud Scope Technologies, Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; Enabling Potential, Inc., Ajax, Ontario, CANADA; Enterprise Designer Institute, Daylesford, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; Everware-CBDI Inc., Fairfax, VA; INTEC Telecom Systems, Minneapolis, MN; INTEC Telecom Systems, Working, Surrey, UNITED KINGDOM; KlassTel, Moscow, RUSSIA; Kulacom, Amman, 11953, JORDAN; LGG Solutions, Colorado Springs, CO; Lightwolf Technologies LLC, Walpole, MA; MAGNA CONSULT, Miami, FL; Nervogrid, Espoo, FINLAND; OKTET Labs Ltd., St. Petersburg, RUSSIA; OpenVision Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand; OT/Partners, Glen Echo, MD; Qualicom Innovations (Asia) Limited, Hong Kong, HONG KONG-CHINA; SARA computing and networking services, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Savvion, Santa Clara, CA; Site of Knowledge Group AB, Lund, SWEDEN; SmartNet, Sao Paulo, BRAZIL; Strata Group Inc., St. Louis, MO; Syntel, Inc., Troy, MI; TailorMade, Sundbyberg, SWEDEN; Telesoft-Russia, Moscow, RUSSIA; Trammell Craig & Associates. Farmington, NM; TTNet A.S. (Turkish Telecom), Sisli/Istanbul, TURKEY; UK Cabinet Office, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Unisys Consulting Spain, Madrid, SPAIN; University of Palermo, Palermo, ITALY; Wiston Wolf-Engenharia e Consultoria Lda., Algés, PORTUGAL.
In addition, the following parties have changed their addresses: Advenis to Linden, BELGIUM; Belgacom, S.A. to Brussels, BELGIUM; Celcom Axiata Berhad to Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA; Dialog Axiata PLC to Colombo, SRI LANKA; Hello Axiata Company Ltd. to Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh, CAMBODIA; IPANEMA TECHNOLOGIES to Fontenay aux Roses, FRANCE; ITS Telco Services GmbH to Koln, GERMANY; Objective Systems Integrators to Folsom, CA; Orckit-Corrigent to Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL; PT XL Axiata Tbk. to Jakarta, DKI Jaya 12950, INDONESIA; SevenTest R&D Centre Co. Ltd. to Saint Petersburg, RUSSIA; SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. to Makati City, NCR, PHILIPPINES; and Ultimate Software to Weston, FL.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research
On October 21, 1988, The Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on August 31, 2010. A notice was published in the
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act Class Exemption 77-4 for Certain Transactions between Investment Companies and Employee Benefit Plans,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2011.
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at
Employee Retirement Income Security Act Class Exemption 77-4 permits an employee benefit plan to purchase and sell shares of an open-end investment company (mutual fund) when a fiduciary with respect to the plan is also the investment advisor for the mutual fund. In order to ensure that the exemption is not abused and that the rights of participants and beneficiaries are protected, the DOL has included in the exemption three basic disclosure requirements. The first requires at the time of the purchase or sale of such mutual fund shares that the independent fiduciary of the plan receive a copy of the current prospectus issued by the open-end mutual fund and a full and detailed written statement of the investment advisory fees charged to or paid by the plan and the open-end mutual fund to the investment advisor. The second requires that the independent fiduciary approve in writing such purchases and sales. The third requires that the independent fiduciary, once notified of changes in the fees, re-approve in writing the purchase and sale of mutual fund shares.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security Act Class Exemption 81-8 for Investment of Plan Assets in Certain Types of Short-Term Investments,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2011.
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at
Employee Retirement Income Security Act Class Exemption 81-8 permits the investment of plan assets that involve the purchase or other acquisition, holding, sale, exchange or redemption by or on behalf of an employee benefit plan of certain types of short-term investments. The Department has included in the class exemption two basic disclosure requirements. Both affect only the portion of the exemption dealing with repurchase agreements. The first requirement calls for the repurchase agreements between the seller and the plan to be in writing. The repurchase agreements have a duration of one year or less and may be in the form of a blanket agreement that covers the transactions for the year. The written agreement is intended to put the plan on notice of possible fees associated with the redemption of open-end mutual fund shares. The second requirement obliges the seller of such repurchase agreements to provide the most recent financial statements to the plan at the time of the sale and as the statements are issued. The seller must also represent, either in the repurchase agreement or prior to each repurchase agreement transaction, that as of the time the transaction is negotiated, there has been no material adverse change in the seller's financial condition since the date the most recent financial statement was furnished that has not been disclosed to the plan fiduciary with whom the written agreement is made.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB control number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Employee Retirement Income Security
Submit comments on or before May 9, 2011.
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site,
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-6929/Fax: 202-395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at
Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 96-62 provides for accelerated approval of an exemption permitting a plan to engage in a transaction which might otherwise be prohibited following a demonstration to the DOL that the transaction: (1) Is substantially similar in all material respects to at least two other transactions for which the DOL recently granted administrative relief from the same restriction; and (2) presents little, if any, opportunity for abuse or risk of loss to a plan's participants and beneficiaries. Under the class exemption, a party may proceed with a transaction in as little as 78 days from the acknowledgment of receipt by the DOL of a written submission filed in accordance with the terms of the class exemption.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB control number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Legal Services Corporation.
Announcement of intention to make FY 2011 Competitive Grant Awards.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) hereby announces its intention to award grants and contracts to provide economical and effective delivery of high quality civil legal services to eligible clients in Louisiana (service area LA-1) beginning June 2011. Service area LA-1 comprises the following Louisiana parishes: Ascension Parish, Assumption Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, East Feliciana Parish, Iberville Parish, Lafourche Parish, Pointe Coupee Parish, St. James Parish, St. John the Baptist Parish, Terrebonne Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, and West Feliciana Parish.
All comments and recommendations must be received on or before the close of business on May 9, 2011.
Legal Services Corporation—Competitive Grants, Legal Services Corporation; 3333 K Street, NW., Third Floor; Washington, DC 20007.
Reginald Haley, Office of Program Performance, at (202) 295-1545, or
Pursuant to LSC's announcement of funding availability on January 11, 2011 (76 FR 7), LSC intends to award funds to the following organizations to provide civil legal services in the indicated service areas. Amounts are subject to change.
These grants and contracts will be awarded under the authority conferred on LSC by the Legal Services Corporation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)(1)). Awards will be made so that each service area is served, although none of the listed organizations are guaranteed an award or contract. This public notice is issued pursuant to the LSC Act (42 U.S.C. 2996f(f)), with a request for comments and recommendations concerning the potential grantees within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Grants will become effective and grant funds will be distributed in June 2011.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the Technology and Innovation Committee of the NASA Advisory Council. The meeting will be held for the purpose of reviewing the Space Technology programs and review knowledge management and technology transfer activities within the Office of the Chief Technologist.
Thursday, April 28, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Local Time and Friday, April 29, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Room MIC-6A (6H45), Washington, DC 20546.
Mr. Mike Green, Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-4710, fax (202) 358-4078, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch B, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Arlington, Texas, 76011. Telephone: 817-860-8197; fax number: 817-860-8188; e-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Material License No. 50-02430-07, issued to the University of Alaska-Fairbanks (the licensee), to authorize the release of an incinerator previously used at the Arctic Health Research Building for unrestricted use and for removal from the license. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for the release of an incinerator previously used at the Arctic Health Research Building, University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, for unrestricted use and removal from the license. The licensee was authorized by the NRC on June 28, 1982, to begin using an incinerator to dispose of radioactive wastes. The licensee has used this incinerator to dispose of biologically hazardous wastes containing low-level radioactive materials. On July 30, 2008, the licensee requested authorization to decommission this incinerator. The licensee stated that it had disposed of wastes containing low levels of hydrogen-3 (tritium) and carbon-14 by incineration. The licensee also disposed of wastes containing phosphorus-32, sulfur-35, and iodine-125 via incinerator after the radioisotopes were allowed to decay in storage. The licensee's submittal included radiological survey results for the incinerator, the area around the incinerator, and accessible areas of the discharge stack. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's submittal and requested additional information about the proposed decommissioning plan. The licensee responded with additional information by letter dated July 12, 2009. The licensee conducted an historical assessment and concluded that the incinerator had been used for 17 years. The licensee estimated that it had disposed of wastes containing about 19 millicuries (0.7 gigabecquerels) of hydrogen-3 (tritium) and about 13 millicuries (0.47 gigabecquerels) of carbon-14. All other radionuclides that were incinerated had short half-lives (less than 88 days) and were allowed to decay in storage prior to incineration. The licensee included additional survey measurements of the accessible areas of the incinerator in its second submittal. The NRC subsequently approved the decommissioning plan by license amendment dated August 12, 2009. The licensee completed decommissioning and submitted a final status survey report to the NRC by letter dated November 16, 2009. The final status survey report included survey data for the discharge stack, data collected from areas that were inaccessible during previous surveys.
The NRC staff conducted a technical review of the licensee's radiological survey data. The licensee's final status survey results were well below the NRC's screening values for hydrogen-3 and carbon-14 as presented in NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 2, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees,” Table B.1, Acceptable License Termination Screening Values of Common Radionuclides for Building-Surface Contamination.” The NRC staff also compared the final status survey results to the equipment release criteria provided in Regulatory Guide 1.86, “Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,” Table 1, Acceptable Surface Contamination Levels. In summary, the licensee conducted radiological surveys of the incinerator and provided sufficient information to the NRC demonstrating that the incinerator meets the license termination criteria specified in Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release of the incinerator. The staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment.
This proposed license amendment will allow the licensee to free-release the decommissioned incinerator without any radiological restrictions. In accordance with the current license, the licensee will continue to be authorized to dispose of biologically hazardous wastes containing limited quantities of licensed radioactive material using a different incinerator.
The staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment to release the incinerator for unrestricted use. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed amendment are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (NUREG-1496). The staff has also found that the non-radiological impacts are not significant. The staff consulted with the State of Alaska, and the State had no comments on the proposed action.
On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 that authorizes operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a boiling-water reactor located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, Section 50.48 requires that nuclear power plants that were licensed before January 1, 1979, must satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, “Fire protection of safe shutdown capability.” Oyster Creek was licensed to operate prior to January 1, 1979. As such, the licensee's Fire Protection Program (FPP) must provide the established level of protection as intended by Section III.G of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R.
By letter dated March 3, 2009, “Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, `Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability (Phase 1)' ” available at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML090630132, and supplemented by letter dated April 2, 2010, “Response to Request for Additional Information Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, `Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability' ” (ML100920370), the licensee requested an exemption for Oyster Creek from certain technical requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 (III.G.2) for the use of operator manual actions (OMAs) in lieu of meeting the circuit separation and protection requirements contained in III.G.2 for the following 21 plant Fire Areas: CW-FA-14, OB-FA-9, OB-FZ-6A, OB-FZ-6B, OB-FZ-8A, OB-FZ-8B, OB-FZ-8C, OB-FZ-10A, RB-FZ-1D, RB-FZ-1E, RB-FZ-1F3, RB-FZ-1F5, RB-FZ-1G, TB-FA-3A, TB-FA-26, TB-FZ-11B, TB-FZ-11C, TB-FZ-11D, TB-FZ-11E, TB-FZ-11F, and TB-FZ-11H. These 21 plant areas are the subject of this exemption.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. The licensee has stated that special circumstances are present in that the application of the regulation in this particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, which is consistent with the language included in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).
In their March 3, 2009, and April 2, 2010, letters, the licensee discussed financial implications associated with plant modifications that may be necessary to comply with the regulation. 10 CFR 50.12(a)2(iii) states that if such costs have been shown to be significantly in excess of those contemplated at the time the regulation was adopted, or are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated, this may be considered a basis for considering an exemption request. However, financial implications were not considered in the regulatory review of their request since no substantiation was provided regarding such financial implications. Even though no financial substantiation was provided, the licensee did submit sufficient regulatory basis to support a technical review of their exemption request in that the application of the regulation in this particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(b), nuclear power plants licensed before January 1, 1979, are required to meet Section III.G of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R. The underlying purpose of Section III.G of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, is to ensure that the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown is preserved following a fire event. The regulation intends for licensees to accomplish this by extending the concept of defense-in-depth to:
(1) Prevent fires from starting;
(2) Rapidly detect, control, and extinguish promptly those fires that do occur;
(3) Provide protection for structures, systems, and components important to safety so that a fire that is not promptly extinguished by the fire suppression activities will not prevent the safe shutdown of the plant.
The stated purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 (III.G.2) is to ensure that one of the redundant trains necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions remains free of fire damage in the event of a fire. III.G.2 requires one of the following means to ensure that a redundant train of safe shutdown cables and equipment is free of fire damage, where redundant trains are located in the same fire area outside of primary containment:
a. Separation of cables and equipment by a fire barrier having a 3-hour rating;
b. Separation of cables and equipment by a horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no intervening combustibles or fire hazards and with fire detectors and
c. Enclosure of cables and equipment of one redundant train in a fire barrier having a 1-hour rating and with fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system installed in the fire area.
Exelon has requested an exemption from the requirements of III.G.2 for Oyster Creek to the extent that redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown are not maintained free of fire damage in accordance with one of the required means prescribed in III.G.2.
Each OMA included in this review consists of a sequence of tasks that occur in various fire areas. The OMAs are initiated upon confirmation of a fire in a particular fire area. Table 1 lists, in the order of the fire area of fire origin, the OMAs included in this review.
In their submittals, the licensee described elements of their fire protection program that provide their justification that the concept of defense-in-depth that is in place in the above fire areas is consistent with that intended by the regulation. To accomplish this, the licensee utilizes various protective measures to accomplish the concept of defense-in-depth. Specifically, the licensee stated that the purpose of their request was to credit the use of OMAs, in conjunction with other defense-in-depth features, in lieu of the separation and protective measures required by III.G.2 for a fire in the fire areas stated above.
In their April 2, 2010, letter the licensee provided an analysis that described how fire prevention is addressed for each of the fire areas for which the OMAs may be required. The licensee developed a Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA) for each fire area or zone identified in its exemption request. For each fire area or zone, the FHA describes the physical location and arrangement of equipment, combustible loading, ignition sources, fire protection features, and proximity of redundant safe shutdown equipment to in situ hazards and identifies deviations from fire protection codes and previously approved exemptions. In addition, for each fire area or zone the licensee's response includes a tabulation of potential ignition sources as well as the equipment that may exhibit high energy arcing faults. For each fire area or zone, the FHA states that the fire protection configuration achieves a level of protection commensurate with that intended by III.G.2.
The 21 areas or zones identified in the request have administratively limited combustible fuel loading with fuel sources consisting primarily of cable insulation and limited floor based combustibles except areas OB-FZ-6A, OB-FZ-6B, and TB-FZ-11B, which contain quantities of transformer liquid or lubricating oil. Combustible fuel loading in most areas is classified as low by the licensee while Fire Areas OB-FZ-6A, OB-FZ-6B, and TB-FA-26 have been classified as having moderate combustible fuel loading and TB-FZ-11B has been classified as having a high combustible fuel loading. In addition, the licensee has stated that they maintain a robust administrative program (
The licensee also stated that 98% of the Oyster Creek cables are jacketed with Vulkene, which passes the horizontal flame test of the Underwriter's Laboratory (UL), therefore reducing the likelihood of the cables themselves contributing to a fire hazard. Furthermore, the areas or zones are of noncombustible construction with typical utilities installed, lighting, ventilation,
Many fire areas included in this exemption have automatic detection systems installed, although the licensee indicated that not all systems are installed in accordance with a recognized standard with regard to spacing in all areas. In such cases, the licensee has stated that the detectors are located near equipment such that they are likely to detect a fire. Upon detecting smoke, the detectors initiate an alarm in the constantly staffed control room. In addition to the automatic suppression systems noted below, equipment operators are trained fire brigade members and may identify and manually suppress or extinguish a fire using the portable fire extinguishers and manual hose stations located throughout the fire areas if a fire is identified in its early stages of growth.
The licensee stated that the postulated fire events that may require the use of the OMAs would include multiple
Each of the fire areas or zones included in this exemption is analyzed below with regard to how the concept of defense-in-depth is achieved for each area or zone and the role of the OMAs in the overall level of safety provided for each area or zone.
The licensee stated that combustible loading is not tracked in this area since it is an outside area. The licensee also stated that the primary combustible materials in the area are transformer liquid and electrical motors; although the amount is not quantified since the area is open to the atmosphere with no walls or ceiling to contain the heat or smoke that may be produced during a fire event. Additionally, the main combustible in this area that could result in the need for the OMAs is Dow Corning 561 Silicon transformer liquid, which the licensee states has characteristics that minimize the likelihood of a fire involving the insulating liquid itself.
CW-FA-14 is not equipped with automatic fire detection or suppression systems but since it is an outdoor area with no walls or ceiling, it is not expected that such systems would enhance this element of defense-in-depth in this area since the area is open to the atmosphere with no walls or ceiling to contain the heat or smoke that may be produced during a fire event. However, the licensee stated that a security tower monitors this area continuously; therefore, any fire of significance would be detected and responded to appropriately by the station fire brigade. Manual suppression is also provided by a fire hydrant and fire hose house located approximately 75 feet from the principal fire hazards.
Since Fire Area CW-FA-14 is an outdoor space with no walls or ceiling, smoke and heat would not accumulate within the fire area to cause damage to components remote to the initiating fire or obstruct operator actions.
In order for OMA #7 to be necessary, the loss of the “B” Train of power would have to occur due to fire damage. Unit Substation Transformer (USS) 1B3 is located in the outside area on the west side of the power block on a raised concrete foundation that sits approximately 5 feet above grade. USS 1B3 is considered as a potential ignition source as well as its associated adjacent transformer, USS 1A3, which is located approximately 15 feet west of USS 1B3. Both of these unit substations are located approximately 20 feet from any plant operating equipment (
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the loss of USS 1B3 or its associated cables, OMA #7 is available to manually open V-9-2099 and V-11-49 and close V-11-63 and V-11-41 to align the fire water system for make-up water to Isolation Condenser “B” since there is no power (“B” Train) available to the Condensate Transfer System. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 10-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time available is 45 minutes, which provides a 22-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that they conservatively assume that instrument air is lost for all Appendix R fires based on the fact that instrument air lines run throughout many areas of the plant. The licensee's analysis assumes that the air line could potentially fail in approximately 45 minutes when exposed to the postulated fire.
The licensee also stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
The licensee stated that OMA #12 essentially duplicates the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) actions for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) level control. Therefore, if a fire did occur and was not immediately discovered, any delay in the entry into the appropriate Fire Support Procedure (FSP) or delay in suppression of the fire would not significantly affect the performance of this OMA, since the EOPs would direct the same action to be performed if required.
Given the combustion resistant properties of the most probable combustible materials, limited ignition sources, and open nature of the area, it is unlikely that a fire would occur, go undetected or unsuppressed by station personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this area, combined with the ability of OMAs #7 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire area as low. The licensee also stated that OB-FA-9 has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 1.5 hours as determined by the time-temperature curve contained in American Society of Testing and
The licensee stated that OB-FA-9 has a partial area coverage wet pipe sprinkler system installed. The licensee further stated that the area is not provided with an area-wide detection system but that there is an installed detection system in the main hallways and inside of the MUX corridor and that it is a high traffic area so a fire would likely be detected by personnel. The wet pipe sprinkler system, when actuated, will alarm in the control room to notify operators of a potential fire event. Extinguishment of a fire in the majority of this area will be accomplished by the plant fire brigade.
The licensee stated that the MUX corridor within OB-FA-9 has a ceiling height of approximately 10′-6″ and an approximate floor area of 513 square feet in the MUX corridor where the safe shutdown equipment is located so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #2 to be necessary, the primary CST level indicator (5F-27) would have to fail as a result of the fire. Should this occur, indication can only be obtained by reading the local indicator (LI-424-993) located at the CST. The licensee stated that the safe shutdown success path structure, system, or component (SSC) cable for the level indicator is routed in a cable tray located approximately 12 feet above the floor in this area (MUX corridor). The cable enters the room in the northwest corner and is routed in a cable tray for approximately 15 feet. It then air drops vertically down into the MUX enclosure. The credited cable is routed in a cable tray with other cables and is routed through the wooden ceiling, which also has some rubber piping insulation on top of the ceiling, thus putting the cable in close proximity to in situ combustibles. However, there are no ignition sources in this area. Therefore, due to the lack of ignition sources, it is not expected that a fire would occur in this area and it is unlikely that the OMA would be required.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the loss of the primary CST level indicator, OMA #2 is available to locally read CST level at the local level indicator, LI-424-993. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 7 minutes while the time available is 73 minutes, which provides a 36-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and sufficient volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the sprinkler system noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this area, combined with the ability of OMAs #2 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as moderate. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 3 hours as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The main combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 81% of loading) and Dow Corning 561 Silicon transformer liquid (approximately 15% of loading). Additionally, the transformer liquid has characteristics that minimize the likelihood of a fire involving the insulating liquid itself.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-6A has an automatic smoke detection system, a total flooding automatic Halon 1301 System, and manual fire fighting capabilities (portable extinguishers and hose stations).
The licensee stated that OB-FA-6A has a ceiling height of approximately 10′-8″ and an approximate floor area of 1157 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #2 to be necessary, the primary CST level indicator (5F-27) would have to fail as a result of the fire. Should this occur, indication can only be obtained by reading the local indicator (LI-424-993) located at the CST. The licensee stated that the safe shutdown success path cable for the level indicator is routed in a conduit that leaves a 120 VAC distribution panel and travels approximately 5 feet vertically to a cable tray that is approximately 9 feet above the floor. The cable is routed with other cables in the cable tray for approximately 15 feet at which point the cable tray travels up through the ceiling. The liquid filled transformer is located approximately 10 feet north of the cable. However, there is a partial non-rated concrete block wall between the transformer and cable tray that would provide some protection of direct flame impingement or radiant heat transfer on the cable tray. The ignition sources in this fire zone consist
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the primary CST level indicator, OMA #2 is available to locally read CST level at local indicator LI-424-993. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 7 minutes while the time available is 73 minutes, which provides a 36-minute margin.
In order for OMA #9 to be necessary, damage to the credited and redundant cables would have to occur due to a fire. The licensee stated that the credited and redundant cables are located in the same cable tray with additional cables and that the tray is located approximately 7 feet above the floor. Other than the cables themselves, the primary combustible in this area is a liquid filled transformer, which is located approximately 7 feet from the cable tray. The licensee also stated that the ignition sources in this fire zone consist of electrical cabinets (120 VAC and 125 VDC circuits) and the liquid filled transformer (4160 VAC to 480 VAC). The electrical cabinets are enclosed metal cabinets, which are located approximately 2 feet from the credited and redundant cables in some locations.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #9 is available to manually control the 480V USS 1B2 breakers for CRD Pump NC08B and 1B2M from the Remote Shutdown Panel. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time available is 180 minutes, which provides a 137-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or Halon system noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #2, #9, and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provide adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as moderate. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 2 hours as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The main combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 28% of loading), Thermo-Lag (approximately 29% of loading) and Dow Corning 561 Silicon transformer liquid (approximately 31% of loading). Also, the transformer liquid has characteristics that minimize the likelihood of a fire involving the insulating liquid itself.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-6B has an automatic smoke detection system, a total flooding Halon 1301 System, and manual fire fighting capabilities (portable extinguishers and hose stations).
The licensee stated that OB-FA-6B has a ceiling height of approximately 10′-8″ and an approximate floor area of 679 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #7 to be necessary, the loss of the “B” Train of power would have to occur due to fire damage. Motor control center (MCC) 1B21 is located approximately 5 feet from USS 1B2. The licensee indicated that a credited power cable for the static charger enters the fire zone through the ceiling of the corridor and then enters the main portion of the room through the north wall approximately 9 feet above the floor. It then runs east and down into MCC 1B21. The cable is located approximately 2 feet above the potential ignition source, USS 1B2, and runs directly into ignition source MCC 1B21. The credited power cable for MCC 1B21 is routed from USS 1B2 to MCC 1B21 in a cable tray. This cable tray runs approximately 10 feet above the floor and approximately 2 feet above the potential ignition sources, USS 1B2 and MCC 1B21, but it also enters into both as indicated above. However, both of these ignition sources are contained in enclosed metal cabinets and are not high voltage. The cable tray is also located approximately 10 feet from the ignition source of the USS 1B2 transformer, which is located near the west end of the room.
The licensee also indicated that the “A” train of power is credited and available for this fire zone and that the redundant cable is associated with the “C” battery charger, which is fire wrapped with a 1-hour barrier in this fire zone. It is unlikely that a fire would develop and cause damage to multiple redundant pieces of equipment given the spatial relationship between the credited equipment and ignition sources, the presence of the automatic Halon system, and the protected “C” battery charger cable.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #7 is available to manually open V-9-2099 and V-11-49 and close V-11-63 and V-11-41 to align the fire water system for make-up water to Isolation Condenser “B” since there is no power (“B” Train) available to the Condensate Transfer System. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 10-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages multiple redundant trains, OMAs #7 and #12 are available to align the fire water system to the isolation condenser and establish CRD flow. The locations of these OMAs are in separate fire areas from Fire Area OB-FZ-6B so a fire in Fire Area OB-FZ-6B would not impact the locations of the actions.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or Halon system noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #7 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
Fire Zones OB-FZ-8A and 8B are evaluated together for the combustible loading and fire safe shutdown (FSSD) analysis due to the lack of rated fire barriers between the zones. The licensee has classified the fire loading in these fire zones as low. The licensee also stated that these fire zones have an administrative fire loading limit of less than 45 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. There are minimal combustibles in Fire Zone OB-FZ-8B. The major combustibles in Fire Zone OB-FZ-8A are lubricating oil (approximately 83% of loading) and cable insulation (approximately 13% of loading).
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-8A has a partial wet-pipe sprinkler system with a flow alarm that notifies the control room and that the area does not have a smoke detection system, however, a duct smoke detector is located in the exhaust duct of fan EF-1-20. Since operation of the sprinkler system will alarm in the control room, prompt notification of and response by, the fire brigade for any required manual fire fighting activities is expected.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-8A has a ceiling height of approximately 10′-10″ and an approximate floor area of 2128 square feet and OB-FZ-8B has a ceiling height of approximately 11′-0″ and an approximate floor area of 479 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #7 to be necessary, the loss of the “B” Train of power would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee indicated that the cable for the 125 VDC control power is in conduit that enters this zone through the ceiling in the northwest corner and then travels south along the ceiling near the west wall approximately 9 feet above the floor and approximately 7 feet from the primary ignition sources in the area, the motor-generator (MG) Sets, and then leaves through the floor, where it runs within 2 feet of the “E” MG-Set. The licensee also indicated that the “A” train of power is credited and available for this fire zone and that the redundant cable is associated with the “C” battery and this cable is not located in this fire zone.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #7 is available to manually open V-9-2099 and V-11-49 and close V-11-63 and V-11-41 to align the fire water system for make-up water to Isolation Condenser “B” since there is no power (“B” Train) available to the Condensate Transfer System. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 10-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time available is 45 minutes, which provides a 22-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or sprinkler systems noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #7 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this fire zone has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 1.5 hours as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The major combustibles in Fire Zone OB-FZ-8C are electrolyte-filled plastic battery cases and racks (approximately 56% of loading) and cable insulation (approximately 39% of loading).
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-8C has a fixed, total-flooding, Halon 1301 extinguishing system, area-wide smoke detection that is installed at the ceiling level and cross-zoned to sound a local alarm, and an alarm in the control room upon actuation of one detector. Actuation of a second detector will sound a local alarm, discharge the Halon system, trip supply and exhaust fans, and close dampers.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-8C has a ceiling height of approximately 11′-0″ and an approximate floor area of 1292 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #2 to be necessary, damage to the primary CST level indicator (5F-27) cable would have to occur due to a fire. Should this occur, indication can only be obtained by reading the local indicator (LI-424-993) located at the CST. Although there is no redundant train of equipment for the credited source of obtaining CST level Indication, the licensee stated that the tray containing the credited train is located in the Electric Tray Room portion of the zone, which is separated from the main battery room by a cable tunnel that is approximately 25 feet long. The licensee also stated that the credited cable runs in a cable tray with other cables, thus putting it in close proximity to in-situ hazards, however, due to the size and use of the room, there are no other credible hazards including transient combustibles.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the loss of the primary CST level indicator, OMA #2 is available to locally read CST level at the local level indicator, LI-424-993. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 7 minutes while the time available is 73 minutes, which provides a 36-minute margin.
In order for OMA #7 to be necessary, the loss of the “B” Train of power would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee indicated that the credited cable is located in the A/B Battery Room portion (main portion) of this fire zone and that the credited cable runs in a conduit that begins at 125V DC Distribution Panel B. The cable is routed in a conduit that runs approximately 1 foot above a series of vertical cable trays, approximately 8 feet above the “B” MG Set, and approximately 3 feet over the top of the 125V DC “B” Distribution Center. However, the “B” MG Set is not normally energized since the static charger is utilized normally for charging the “B” Battery. The licensee also indicated that the battery banks are another potential ignition source in the room but that they are located greater than 15 feet from the particular conduit in question but that the failure of the battery itself may also require the OMA. The “A” train of power is credited and available for this fire zone. The redundant cable, “C” battery, “C” Distribution center,
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #7 is available to manually open V-9-2099 and V-11-49 and close V-11-63 and V-11-41 to align the fire water system for make-up water to Isolation Condenser “B” since there is no power (“B” Train) available to the Condensate Transfer System. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 10-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time available is 45 minutes, which provides a 22-minute margin.
In order for OMA #8 to be necessary, damage to the credited control cables, 1A2M & A CRD Pump, and the redundant control cables, 1B2M and B CRD Pump, would have to occur due to a fire. The licensee stated that the credited and redundant cables are run in the same cable tray with additional cables in the Electric Tray Room portion of this fire area and are separated from the main battery room by a cable tunnel that is approximately 25-feet long. With the exception of the cables themselves, there are no other combustibles or ignition sources and the storage of transient combustibles in this portion of the fire zone is remote since it is a small room with only one door for access or egress.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #8 is available to manually control the 480V USS 1A2 breakers for “A” CRD Pump and 1A2M from LSP-1A2. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 8 minutes while the time available is 60 minutes, which provides a 22-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
In order for OMA #16 to be necessary, damage to the credited cables for tripping the recirculation pumps or the loss of the 125 VDC “B” Battery and “B” Distribution Center would have to occur due to a fire. The licensee stated that the
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and damages the credited and redundant cables, OMA #16 is available to manually trip Reactor Recirculation Pumps (“A,” “C,” and “E”) 4160V Switchgear 1A and 1B. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 10-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 13 minutes while the time available is 30 minutes, which provides a 7-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or Halon systems noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #2, #7, #8, #12, and #16 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The major combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 27% of loading), rubber flooring (approximately 31% of loading), miscellaneous plastics (approximately 15% of loading) and protective clothing supplies (approximately 20% of loading). However, since the protective clothing supplies have been placed in metal cans with self-closing lids they are no longer considered a contribution to the combustibles in this area.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-10A has an area-wide smoke detection system and a wet-pipe automatic sprinkler system installed throughout the area. In addition, a hose station located nearby, outside the control room, provides manual suppression capability.
The licensee stated that OB-FZ-10A has a ceiling height of approximately 13′-0″ and an approximate floor area of 2019 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 18 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 156-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or sprinkler systems noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMA #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The main combustible in this area is attributed to cable insulation (approximately 84% of loading).
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1D has an area-wide smoke detection system and an automatic fixed deluge water spray system installed over cable trays and open hatches. The deluge suppression system protecting safety-related cable trays is automatically activated by a cross-zoned detection system consisting of linear heat detection wire located on top of the cables in each original safety-related cable trays and smoke detectors are located in each beam pocket at the ceiling.
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1D has a ceiling height of approximately 21′-0′ and an approximate floor area of 9,100 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or localized water deluge systems noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMA #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The main combustible in this area is attributed to cable insulation (approximately 84% of loading).
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1E has an area-wide smoke detection system and an automatic fixed deluge water spray system installed over cable trays and open hatches. The deluge suppression system protecting safety-related cable trays is automatically activated by a cross-zoned detection system consisting of linear heat detection wire located on top of the cables in each original safety-related cable trays and smoke detectors are located in each beam pocket at the ceiling.
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1E has a ceiling height of approximately 26′-9″ and an approximate floor area of 12,140 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #11 to be necessary, the normal local gauge for CRD flow, FI-225-2, would have to be damaged by fire. The licensee stated that there are no in-situ combustibles present in the immediate area surrounding the gauge and that the placement of transient combustibles is remote since the gauge is surrounded by piping and tubing. The licensee also stated that the nearest ignition source is MCC 1A21B, which is located approximately 8 feet from the flow gauge. However, the solid steel rear of the MCC faces the flow gauge making it highly unlikely that this potential ignition source would adversely impact the flow gauge.
OMA #11 would require re-entry into Fire Zone RB-FZ-1E to manually control CRD System valves V-15-237, V-15-30, and V-15-52 located in this fire zone while monitoring flow at FI-225-998 to establish CRD flow to the reactor due to the loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve. Fusing of the unprotected CRD valves by heat from a fire resulting in the valves becoming inoperable is not considered credible because of the low fire loading, the provision of automatic fire detection and suppression capability and the heat sink capability of the water filled piping connected to the valve. Operation of one of the valves that is in close proximity to these valves was previously approved in the exemption discussed above.
In the unlikely event that a fire occurs and this flow gauge becomes unreadable, OMA #11 is available to locally read flow gauge FI-225-998, which is the redundant instrument that provides the same data and is mounted on an instrument rack located in Fire Zone RB-FZ-1D. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 100 minutes, including a 90-minute allowance before re-entry, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 74-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to reenter RB-FZ-1E and manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 100 minutes, including a 90-minute allowance before re-entry, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 74-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or localized water deluge systems noted above, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #11 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The major combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 58% of loading), ladders (approximately 16% of loading) and lubricating oil in pumps (approximately 16% of loading).
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1F3 has smoke detectors which alarm locally and in the control room installed over hazards rather than mounted at the ceiling. Fire extinguishers are also
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1F3 has a ceiling height of approximately 41′-6″ and an approximate floor area of 560 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #13 to be necessary, both CRD pumps located in this area would have to become damaged due to a fire. The licensee stated that the pumps are separated by a horizontal distance of approximately 6 feet and that the associated cables and conduits are in close proximity to each other. The licensee also stated that the primary ignition sources in the area, aside from the pumps themselves, are located approximately 18 feet from the CRD pumps.
In the unlikely event that a fire occurs and causes damage to both pumps, OMA #13 is available to re-enter this fire zone and manually open Core Spray valves V-20-1 and V-20-2 and close V-20-4 (V-20-2 and V-20-4 are located in Fire Zone RB-FZ-1F2) to provide Reactor Coolant Makeup from the CST for Fire Zone RB-FZ-1F3. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 35 minutes while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 139-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and large volume of the space it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection system or personnel and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMA #13 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The major combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 19% of loading) and gratings (approximately 76% of loading). The grating, which is the largest plastic material in this area, has a low flame spread rating (less than 25).
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1F5 does not have a detection or suppression systems. The NRC staff finds that the, because of the low amount of combustible material in the area and low flame spread rating of the majority of this material, a fire in this zone is not expected to be of significant size or duration.
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1F5 is a voluminous area with an approximate floor area of 11450 square feet and a ceiling height of approximately 41′-6″, therefore, it is unlikely that smoke and heat from a fire in the area would accumulate at the location of the instrument air line and cause a loss of instrument air.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and the large volume of the area, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMA #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The main combustibles in this area are cable insulation (approximately 12% of loading), plastic (approximately 57% of loading) and Class A combustibles (approximately 14% of loading). The grating, which is the majority of the plastic material in this area, has a low flame spread rating (less than 25).
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1G is provided with a smoke detection system that alarms locally and in the control room to provide prompt notification of a potential fire event.
The licensee stated that RB-FZ-1G has a ceiling height of approximately 21′, measured from the 51′-3″ elevation, and an approximate floor area of 1609 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #11 to be necessary, the normal local gauge for CRD flow, FI-
In the unlikely event that a fire occurs and this flow gauge becomes unreadable, OMA #11 is available to locally read flow gauge FI-225-998, which is the redundant instrument that provides the same data and is mounted on an instrument rack located in Fire Zone RB-FZ-1D. The licensee also stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 100 minutes, including a 90-minute allowance before re-entry, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 74-minute margin.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 100 minutes, including a 90-minute allowance before re-entry, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 74-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection system or personnel and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this zone, combined with the ability of OMAs #11 and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire area as low. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 30 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. There are minimal amounts of cable insulation (approximately 5% of loading) miscellaneous plastic (approximately 73% of loading) and class A combustibles such as paper for procedures (approximately 20% of loading) in this area.
The licensee stated that TB-FA-3A is provided with an area-wide smoke detection system and a total-flooding, manually actuated CO
The licensee stated that TB-FA-3A has a ceiling height of approximately 21′ and an approximate floor area of 336 square feet so it is unlikely that smoke and heat would accumulate at the height of the safe shutdown equipment and cause a failure due to fire damage.
In order for OMA #12 to be necessary, a loss of instrument air to the CRD flow control valve would have to occur due to fire damage. The licensee stated that the normal CRD flow control valve is a single component without a redundant counterpart. Because of this, a manual bypass is provided to maintain flow around the CRD flow control valves that fail closed upon loss of instrument air or control cable damage.
In the unlikely event that a fire does occur and causes the normal flow control valve to be unavailable due to a loss of instrument air or cable damage, OMA #12 is available to manually open V-15-237, throttle V-15-30 while monitoring flow at FI-225-2, and close V-15-52 to establish CRD flow to the reactor. Furthermore, OMA #12 would only be necessary if the Isolation Condenser/CRD systems are utilized for hot shutdown. If OMA #12 becomes necessary, the licensee stated that they have assumed a 30-minute diagnosis period and that the required time to perform the action is 15 minutes, while the time available is 204 minutes, which provides a 159-minute margin.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and large volume of the space, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or CO
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire area as moderate. The licensee also stated that this area has an administrative fire loading limit of less than 90 minutes as determined by the ASTM E119 time-temperature curve. The major combustibles in this area are plastic, which is contributed by the battery cases (approximately 92% of loading) and cable insulation (approximately 6% of loading).
The licensee stated that TB-FA-26 has an area-wide automatic pre-action sprinkler system and an area-wide smoke detection system installed. Additionally, the licensee identified that the battery cases are filled with water which would provide some resistance to combustion of the cases.
The licensee stated that there are no specific cables in this fire area associated with the OMAs identified for Fire Area TB-FA-26 and that the only
The licensee stated that this fire area is wholly contained within Fire Zone TB-FZ-11C (A and B 4160V Room) and that all cables to TB-FA-26 must traverse TB-FZ-11C. Therefore, TB-FA-26 and TB-FZ-11C were analyzed together for safe shutdown purposes and the OMAs are duplicated for these two plant areas. Refer to Section 3.16 below for NRC staff's evaluation of the feasibility of OMAs #1, #3, #6, and #12, which are common to both areas.
Given the limited amount of combustible materials, ignition sources, and lack of multiple safe shutdown trains in this area, it is unlikely that a fire would occur and go undetected or unsuppressed by the smoke detection or sprinkler systems, or personnel, and damage the safe shutdown equipment. The low likelihood of damage to safe shutdown equipment due to a fire in this area, combined with the ability of OMAs #1, #3, #6, and #12 to manipulate the plant in the event of a fire that damages safe shutdown equipment, provides adequate assurance that safe shutdown capability is maintained.
The licensee has classified the fire loading in this fire zone as high. The licensee also stated that this fire zone has administrative controls such that additional combustible materials are not introduced into this zone and defense-in-depth features to control a potential oil fire in this zone. The major combustibles in this area are lubricating oil (approximately 99% of loading) and cable insulation (approximately 0.3% of loading). The amount of oil contained in the lube oil storage tanks in this fire zone results in a combustible loading of approximately 14 hours.
The licensee stated that TB-FZ-11B has automatic suppression systems installed over principal combustibles and a rate of rise/fixed temperature fire detection system installed at the lube oil tank. A closed head automatic sprinkler system protects cable trays and open head water spray deluge system protects oil handling equipment and the oil storage tank. Thermal detectors are located in close proximity to the lube oil tank so that a lube oil fire would be quickly detected, which in turn would activate the deluge system for extinguishment. Additionally, the licensee stated that there are fire extinguishers provided throughout the zone and that aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is staged in the Fire Brigade van for use if necessary.
The licensee stated that the ceiling heights in the area are approximately 9′-0″ in the basement hallway, approximately 19′-0″ in the basement stairs, approximately 26′-0″ on the first floor of the area, and approximately 42′-0″ on the second floor of the area. Additionally, the licensee stated that the floor area, measured at the 0′-0″ elevation is approximately 3,175 square feet.
In order for OMA #1 to be necessary, damage to the credited and redundant cables would have to occur due to a fire. The licensee stated that these cables are located in the same tray with additional cables and are generally located approximately 14 feet above the floor. The licensee also stated that the cables pass over the top of potential ignition sources MCC