Forest Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Justice Programs Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This 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:
One in-service incident has been reported on [a] DHC-8 Series 400 aeroplane in which the right hand main landing gear (MLG) failed to extend using the alternate gear extension system. * * * Failure of [the] MLG to extend and lock could adversely affect the safe landing of the aeroplane.
This AD becomes effective September 19, 2011.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 19, 2011.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7303; fax (516) 794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
One in-service incident has been reported on [a] DHC-8 Series 400 aeroplane in which the right hand main landing gear (MLG) failed to extend using the alternate gear extension system. Investigation determined that the tread on the outboard tire was catching on the bumper plate located on the outboard MLG door that prevented the MLG door to open following an extension attempt via the alternate extension system. Failure of [the] MLG to extend and lock could adversely affect the safe landing of the aeroplane.
To prevent the potential jam condition between the bumper plate and the MLG tires, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification to trim the edge of the bumper plate to eliminate the possibility of interference [Bombardier Modsum 4-113645].
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 65 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $479 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 AD on U.S. operators to be $75,335, or $1,159 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
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a ”significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ”significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 19, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 4001 through 4247 inclusive.
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing Gear.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
One in-service incident has been reported on [a] DHC-8 Series 400 aeroplane in which the right hand main landing gear (MLG) failed to extend using the alternate gear extension system. * * * Failure of [the] MLG to extend and lock could adversely affect the safe landing 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 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Incorporate Bombardier Modsum 4-113645, including performing a detailed visual inspection for damage or cracks of the bumper plate and base fitting and replacing any damaged or cracked part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, Revision A, dated May 17, 2010. Do all applicable replacements before further flight.
(h) For airplanes on which a bumper plate having part number 85424082-101 or 85424082-103 is installed that has been reworked in accordance with Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-54-553: Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, reidentify the bumper plate, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., step (8) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, Revision A, dated May 17, 2010.
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, Revision A, dated May 17, 2010, includes an operational check of the alternate extension system of the MLG. If the check fails, guidance on doing corrective actions can be found in the Bombardier Q400 Dash 8 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
(i) Incorporation of Bombardier Modsum 4-113645 before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, dated December 23, 2009, is considered acceptable for compliance with the modification in paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the action in paragraph (h) of this AD is done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
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)
(k) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-23, dated July 21, 2010; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, Revision A, dated May 17, 2010; for related information.
(l) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-74, Revision A, dated May 17, 2010, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; e-mail
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
This AD becomes effective September 19, 2011.
On September 19, 2011, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA—Direction des Services—65921 Tarbes Cedex 9—France; telephone +33 (0) 62 41 7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport (HWO), Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023;
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the inspection of the elevators trim tab actuator P/N 6071017251 for identification of S/N and, in case of findings, the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 377 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 AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $32,045, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $595 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 19, 2011.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 530, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
A TBM 700 operator reported a case of elevator trim tab actuator jamming once the trim tab arrived to stop.
The investigations conducted by the trim tab actuator manufacturer have shown that there was a discrepancy with PRECILEC manufacturing process of elevator trim tab actuator which caused this event. It has been determined as well that this discrepancy is limited to a batch of Serial Numbers (S/N).
If not detected and corrected, a jammed trim tab could lead to unusual control forces, resulting in lower controllability, particularly if combined with adverse flight conditions at landing.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires the inspection of the elevators trim tab actuator P/N 6071017251 for identification of S/N and, in case of findings, the replacement of the affected ones with serviceable units.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within 12 months after September 19, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), identify the serial number (S/N) of Left Hand and Right Hand PRECILEC elevator trim tab actuators following DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
(2) If, as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD you find any affected elevator trim tab actuator as listed in DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, installed on an airplane, before further flight, replace it with a serviceable part following DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
(3) After September 19, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), do not install on an airplane any PRECILEC elevator trim tab actuator part number 6071017251 with an S/N listed in DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, unless it has been repaired in accordance with DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
Trim tab actuators repaired by a service center are identified with screw green colored locking varnish as shown in figure 2 of DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591,
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011-0060, dated March 29, 2011 (Correction: March 30, 2011); and DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27, dated January 2011, for related information.
(i) You must use DAHER-SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-190-27,
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA—Direction des Services—65921 Tarbes Cedex 9—France; telephone +33 (0) 62 41 7300, fax +33 (0) 62 41 76 54, or for North America: SOCATA NORTH AMERICA, 7501 South Airport Road, North Perry Airport (HWO), Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023;
(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information incorporated by reference for this AD 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:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding fifteen persons under twenty entries to the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) on the basis of section 744.11 of the EAR. The persons being added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These persons will be listed under the following six destinations on the Entity List: Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom (U.K.).
In addition, this rule amends the EAR to implement modifications to the Entity List on the basis of the annual review of the Entity List conducted by the End-User Review Committee (ERC), which the ERC conducts to determine if any entities on the Entity List should be removed or modified. This rule implements the results of the annual review for entities located in Syria.
Lastly, this rule makes a clarification to an existing entry located in China to clarify the relationship of a listed alias to the existing entry and to provide additional information on the alias.
Karen Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, e-mail:
The Entity List notifies the public that certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require a license from BIS and that the availability of license exceptions in such transactions is limited. Entities are placed on the Entity List on the basis of certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) of the EAR.
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, when appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other changes to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.
This rule implements decisions of the ERC to add persons to the Entity List and modify existing entries based on the annual review of the Entity List. First, this rule implements the decision of the ERC to add fifteen persons under twenty entries to the Entity List on the basis of section 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. Second, this rule implements the results of the annual review for entities located in Syria by making modifications to seven existing entries under Syria on the Entity List.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add fifteen persons under twenty entries (including five additional entries) to the Entity List on the basis of section 744.11 of the EAR. The twenty entries added to the Entity List consist of one person in Cyprus, three persons in Greece, four persons in Iran, two persons in Syria, five persons in Ukraine, and five persons in the U.K. The additional five entries cover five additional addresses of persons added to the Entity List—these persons are being listed under multiple countries to account for alternate addresses of these persons in those countries. Specifically, these five additional entries cover one person in Ukraine who also has addresses in Iran and Syria (resulting in two additional entries for the Iran and Syria addresses), one person in Ukraine who also has addresses in Greece and in the U.K. (resulting in two additional entries for the Greece and U.K. addresses), and one person in the U.K. who also has an address in Cyprus (resulting in one additional entry for the Cyprus address).
The ERC reviewed section 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these persons to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom, based on specific and articulable facts, there is reasonable cause to believe have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List pursuant to section 744.11. Paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(5) include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.
The persons being added to the Entity List under this rule have been determined by the ERC to be involved in activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Examples of the specific activities these persons have been involved with that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States pursuant to section 744.11 include the violation of the license requirements imposed for exports and reexports to Syria as specified in General Order No. 2 of Supplement No.
This rule adds fifteen persons under twenty entries to the Entity List on the basis of section 744.11 of the EAR. For all of the fifteen persons added to the Entity List, the ERC specifies a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and establishes a license application review policy of a presumption of denial. The license requirement applies to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) to such persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for shipments to those persons being added to the Entity List.
Specifically, this rule adds the following fifteen persons under twenty entries to the Entity List:
(1)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
This rule amends the EAR to implement changes to the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) on the basis of the annual review of the Entity List conducted by the ERC, in accordance with the procedures outlined in Supplement No. 5 to part 744 (Procedures for End-User Review Committee Entity List Decisions). The changes from the annual review of the Entity List that are approved by the ERC are implemented in stages as the ERC completes its review of entities listed under different destinations on the Entity List. This rule implements the results of the annual review for entities located in Syria.
On the basis of decisions made by the ERC during the annual review, this rule amends seven entries currently on the Entity List under Syria by modifying or adding addresses or aliases, as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
BIS published a final rule on April 18, 2011 (76 FR 21628) (April 18 Final Rule) that made revisions to the Entity List. These revisions included a clarification in the preamble of the rule that the “901 Institute” should be listed as one of nineteen individual aliases for the listed person the “Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics” (CAEP) and not as part of the eighteenth alias,
Second, this rule corrects an inadvertent error in the April 18 Final Rule by removing “901 Institute” as an alias of CAEP's eighteenth alias in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the EAR because, as explained in the April 18 Final Rule and noted above, the “901 Institute” is not part of the eighteenth alias (
Specifically, this rule revises this existing entry to the Entity List, as described above, to read as follows:
(1)
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting or reexporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on August 15, 2011, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) so long as they are exported or reexported before August 30, 2011. Any such items not actually exported or reexported before midnight, on August 30, 2011, require a license in accordance with the EAR.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as extended by the Notice of August 12, 2010, 75 FR 50681 (August 16, 2010), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in September 2011. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective September 1, 2011.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for September 2011.
The September 2011 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 2.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for August 2011, these interest assumptions are unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during September 2011, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service announces the issuance of the
Lizbeth Dobbins, (202) 268-3789.
The
Foreign relations; Incorporation by reference.
In view of the considerations discussed above, the Postal Service hereby amends 39 CFR part 20 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
(a) Section 552(a) of title 5, U.S.C., relating to the public information requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, provides in pertinent part that matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the
(b) * * *
The provisions of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA, Region 2, is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in the Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final Notice of Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). EPA and NJDEP have determined that all appropriate remedial actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This direct final deletion will be effective September 29, 2011 unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by September 14, 2011. If significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866,
Diane Salkie, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone at (212) 637-4370; fax at (212) 637-4393; or e-mail at:
EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e) (3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective September 29, 2011 unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by September 14, 2011. Along with this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing the Notice of Intent to Delete in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless significant adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, implementing remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above
The following procedures apply to deletion of this Site.
(1) EPA consulted with the state of New Jersey prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the Home News Tribune. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e) (3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for deleting this Site from the NPL.
The Sayreville Landfill Superfund site (CERCLIS ID: NJD980505754) covers approximately 30 acres and is located in a moderately industrial section of the Borough of Sayreville in Middlesex County, New Jersey, approximately one mile south of Route 535 and one and a half miles north of the Bordentown-Amboy Turnpike. Several small industries surround the Site to the north, east and south. The South River, which flows north, is a major tributary to the Raritan River and forms the western border of the Site. The river waters adjacent to the Site are designated for both primary and secondary contact recreation. Pond Creek forms a portion of the Site boundary to the north and northwest and Duck Creek on the south and southwest. These waters are classified by the NJDEP as fresh water Non-Trout. The Site is partially located within the tidal wetlands of the river with drainage swales along the western part of the property.
In February 1986, NJDEP engaged B&V Waste Science and Technology, Inc. (BVWST) to begin a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) at the Site. The Phase I field work was conducted between November 1986 and March 1987 and included the following activities: installation of 21 groundwater monitoring wells and three piezometer wells; collection of groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells; collection of surface water and stream sediment samples from 11 locations surrounding the Site; excavation of five test pits and collection of soil samples; and air
On September 28, 1990, EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting a remedial action plan for the landfill (OU1). The remedial action objectives for the OU1 ROD include the following: prevent direct contact with landfill soils and buried drums and minimize surface water runoff which contributes to landfill erosion; minimize the migration of soil and drum content contaminants into groundwater, surrounding surface waters and stream sediments; and identify potential releases of contaminants to groundwater, surface water and sediments. The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Fencing of the Site to restrict access and the establishment of deed restrictions;
• Capping of the wastefill with a NJDEP solid waste cap to prevent infiltration and any potential releases of hazardous waste to groundwater and surface waters;
• Construction of an access road and storm water and passive gas management systems;
• Removal and off-site thermal treatment of buried drums containing hazardous wastes;
• Intensive groundwater, surface waters, stream sediments and air sampling and monitoring; and
• The installation of additional groundwater monitor wells within the deep Farrington aquifer.
In a supplemental investigation, a third round of water sampling was conducted on the 21 wells in addition to installing two more deep wells in the deep Farrington Sand aquifer.
These successive sampling events indicated that the contaminant concentrations had declined over time. The deep Farrington Sand aquifer was determined to have no contaminants above the NJ Ground-Water Quality Standards. On June 30, 1997, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (OU1 ESD) which modified the original cleanup selected in the 1990 OU1 ROD. The OU1 ESD documented that EPA and NJDEP, after further review of the circumstances surrounding the Site, including additional monitoring data, determined that installation of an additional deep well into the Farrington Sand aquifer was not necessary.
Based on the findings of the various investigations, the fact that there are no known users of the perched and shallow aquifers and that ground-water contaminant concentrations appeared to be decreasing, on September 23, 1998, the NJDEP, in consultation with EPA, issued a ROD for off-site sediments, surface water, and groundwater (OU2). The OU2 ROD selected as the remedy, “No Further Action” for surface water and sediments, and “No Further Action with Monitoring” for groundwater. The OU2 ROD also called for:
• Monitoring of the wells surrounding the landfill to verify the effectiveness of the landfill cap and to ensure that the landfill is not contaminating the groundwater.
• Implementation of a Deed Notice to prevent any intrusive activities into the landfill cap.
• Implementation of a Classification Exception Area (CEA) for the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of the Site.
Actual on-site construction began on June 30, 1997, and was substantially completed by July 1998. A Preliminary Closeout Report was issued by EPA on September 28, 1998. O'Brien and Gere Engineers certified final construction completion in June 1999. EPA approved the Remedial Action Report on September 30, 1999. The Remedial Action Report contains detailed information on the construction and demonstrates that the remedy is operational and functional.
The PRPs selected IEM Sealand/ThermoRetec as the prime construction contractor on May 5, 1997 and O'Brien and Gere was selected as the oversight contractor. Major work activities included: site clearing and grubbing, waste relocation from the northern peninsula to the main landfill; waste removal from the demolition area and perimeter areas and relocation to the main landfill; regrading of the main landfill cap area; construction of the landfill cap system; placement of topsoil and seeding; gas vent installation; monitoring well abandonment; retrofitting of monitoring wells to accommodate the final grade; drum removal; and wetlands mitigation.
The perimeter of the Site was cleared and installation of the perimeter soil and erosion control measures was completed. Excavation of waste from the northern landfill proceeded with excavation, hauling, placement and compaction of materials to the main landfill area. Upon completion of excavation, confirmation soil samples were collected to ensure cleanup levels were attained. Construction of the cap system included a riprap channel around the perimeter of the cap to allow drainage. The cap consists of a six-inch sand bedding layer with geo-membrane liner placed on the sand. On top of the liner, a geo-net drainage system was installed. The next layer consists of 18-inch embankment material covered with six inches of topsoil. Eighteen drums of solid waste and 17 drums of liquid waste were transported off site by Waste Minimization Sciences, Inc. on April 30, 1998 for disposal by incineration. Two freshwater wetland mitigation areas were developed at the northeast and southeast corners of the main landfill. Three inspections were made following the creation of the wetlands mitigation areas to document types and amounts of vegetation and to determine survival rates of the plant species.
Fencing was installed extending several hundred feet along Jernee Mill Road in both directions from the entrance gate. At both ends, the fence then turns westward towards the South River and proceeds approximately halfway to the River, preventing access to the landfill Site from areas other than wetlands. “No Trespassing” signs have also been posted around the perimeter of the landfill Site. The deed notice was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10, 2010. In March 2003, in accordance with the OU2 ROD requirement for the establishment of a State Classification Exception Area (CEA), municipal engineers for the Borough of Sayreville, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, provided NJDEP with information that was placed in the State's CEA database which identifies what areas of the Site have ground-water contamination in excess of New Jersey Ground-Water Quality Standards. The CEA was established by NJDEP on June 14, 2007.
After the composite cap system was installed, groundwater monitoring was conducted semi-annually from August 1991 until August 2004 and continued annually until November 2007. From 2008-2010 a review of groundwater data and on-site gas monitoring was performed and a revision to the O&M plan was submitted to NJDEP. Over the
According to the Post-Closure O&M Plan groundwater is sampled from ten monitoring wells in three water bearing zones: perched, shallow and deep. The applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the groundwater at the Site are the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQSs). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) benzene, chlorobenzene and chloroethene, have historically been the only VOCs above the ARARs in the perched or shallow zone wells. The levels have demonstrated significant decreases in concentration in the last few years. Historically, one semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) was detected in the shallow and deep zones but is not considered Site related and is below the ARARs. Inorganic compounds found throughout the Site are arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, nickel, manganese, sodium and thallium. Aluminum, iron, manganese and sodium reflect regional background conditions and are not thought to be Site related. Inorganic concentrations have fluctuated over the fourteen rounds of sampling, but have shown a decrease and stability since 2006.
In 1986 and 1987, investigations indicated that gaseous emissions of volatile compounds at the Site were almost exclusively methane. To control the emissions, 22 passive vents were installed within the landfill. In 1999, 13 soil gas monitoring probes were installed around the perimeter of the landfill. However, these probes failed and were replaced by the current monitoring system in 2003. The gas has been monitored for methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen quarterly from the new probes since 2004. Methane has been consistently elevated in soil gas probe P-6A located at the edge of the Site in the wetlands area. All other probes have shown methane at a non-detect level or have decreased to non-detect. In 2008, a forensic analysis of methane from P-6A and landfill vent LV-15 was conducted and determined that the gas is consistent with a biogenically-derived gas from landfill activities and not from the natural wetlands. Probe P-6A is located near monitoring well MW-6S which has not shown any volatile organic compound contamination for several years. There are no health and safety concerns due to the absence of confined space and distance to off-site receptors.
Detailed “Sampling and Monitoring Reports” were submitted by O'Brien and Gere Engineers to the PRP Committee members, NJDEP, and EPA on a semi-annual basis. These reports included both maintenance and monitoring activities and identified any problems and corrective measures. Routine O&M activities are performed by O'Brien and Gere Engineers by contract with the PRP Committee at the Site in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Manual which was approved by NJDEP in November 1995.
Ten ground-water monitoring wells (three wells in the perched aquifer, four wells in the shallow aquifer, one well in the water bearing Woodbridge/South Amboy Clay, and two wells in the deep aquifer) were sampled semi-annually over a period of five years. The final semi-annual report was submitted in January 2005. Since then, monitoring has been conducted on an annual basis until 2007. The latest data provided to EPA was obtained from samples taken in November 2007 and December 2010.
In 2011, NJDEP approved the revised O&M Plan with the following modifications to the sampling and analysis plan:
(1) A reduction in the groundwater monitoring frequency to one round per five years.
(2) Monitoring of the deep water bearing zone (wells MW-1D, MW-14, and MW-15) is discontinued since it is not part of the CEA, and investigations and monitoring have demonstrated that no contamination related to the landfill has impacted the deep water zone.
(3) Semi-volatile organic contaminants are not detected in the groundwater and were removed from the list of target analytes.
(4) Based on the CEA constituents and recent analytical results, the list of target organic analytes includes the following volatile organic contaminants: benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane
(5) Based on the CEA constituents and recent analytical results, the list of target inorganic analytes was reduced to the following: arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel and thallium; all other detected inorganic constituents (iron, manganese, and sodium) that exceed the GWQS reflect regional background conditions
(6) A low flow purging and sampling methodology in general conformance with the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual (2005) should continue to be used to obtain a more accurate representation of actual groundwater quality in the monitored water bearing zones.
Following completion of the remedial construction, Site inspections were performed monthly for two years and then quarterly thereafter. The findings are recorded in the inspection and maintenance logs provided in Appendix A of the “Sampling and Monitoring Reports”. The contractor cuts the grass on a monthly basis as needed, and performs any necessary repairs to the liners and/or the soil gas monitoring probes. Damage to the surface soil above the cap is also inspected and repaired as necessary. The contractor is also responsible for maintaining the integrity of the fence.
Site inspections are conducted quarterly and reported to EPA and DEP annually in the form of the Post-Closure Inspection and Maintenance Form along with any necessary support information. The site inspection investigates the conditions of the fence, security signs, access road and gates as well as the state of the landfill cap, vegetation and drainage. The 2010 Deed Notice places restrictions on the Site so that no alteration, improvement or disturbance of the cap, or the landfill materials can take place without prior approval from NJDEP.
Two Five-Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site, the first in 2002, and the second in 2007. The implemented actions (OU-1 and OU-2) taken at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site were found to be protective of human health and the environment in the short-term and that in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the final institutional controls needed to be implemented. The deed notice was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10, 2010. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the Site use does not change and the engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. In addition, the deed notice has been recorded restricting land use and the CEA is in place to restrict groundwater use providing for long-term protectiveness of human health and the environment. The next five-year review will be completed by June 2012.
Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613 (k) and 9617. Throughout the removal and remedial process, EPA and the NJDEP have kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability of documents such as the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and Five-Year Reviews. Notices associated with these community relations activities were also mailed out to the area residents and other concerned parties on the mailing list for the Site.
The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate” as stated in 40 CFR 300.425(e) (1) (ii). EPA, with the concurrence from the State of New Jersey, through NJDEP, dated July 27, 2011, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.
The groundwater meets applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) at all monitoring wells located at the downgradient boundary of the waste management area. The downgradient wells outside the boundary of the landfill were removed from the sampling plan based on had multiple years of sampling results with non-detect for the site contaminants of concern.
The deed notice was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10, 2010. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the Site engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be properly operated, monitored, and maintained. In addition, the deed notice has been recorded restricting use and providing for long-term protectiveness of human health and the environment.
In March 2003, in accordance with the September 23, 1998 Record of Decision requirement for the establishment of a State Classification Exception Area (CEA), municipal engineers for the Borough of Sayreville, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, provided NJDEP with information that was placed in the State's CEA database which identifies what areas of the Site have ground-water contamination in excess of New Jersey Ground-Water Quality Standards. The CEA was established by NJDEP on June 14, 2007.
EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, other than operation, maintenance and five-year reviews, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is deleting the Site without prior publication. This action will be effective September 29, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 14, 2011. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble Part 300 Title 40 of Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O.12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect for the listed communities prior to this date.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice. However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection.
The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents.
These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail)
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission adopts rules to mitigate space path interference between the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) space-to-Earth transmissions and the feeder link receiving antennas of Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS) space stations that operate in the same frequency band. We adopt an off-axis power flux density (pfd) coordination trigger for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. We also require a minimum orbital separation of 0.2 degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS space stations and DBS space stations. We place bounds on orbital eccentricity and inclination of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations and condition the protection of DBS networks to certain assumed limits on eccentricity and inclination. By these actions, we facilitate the introduction of the 17/24 GHz BSS and anticipate that it will provide new and innovative services, including video, audio, data, and video-on-demand, to consumers in the United States and promote increased competition among satellite and terrestrial services.
We revised our informational requirements to require 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicants to file pfd calculations (and if the pfd coordination trigger is exceeded, to file coordination information), and to file predicted and measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information. We also require both 17/24 GHz BSS applicants and DBS applicants to file maximum orbital eccentricity information with their application. Finally, we adopt procedures to enable pending applicants and existing authorization holders to file relevant information related to these rules.
Effective September 14, 2011, except §§ 25.114(d)(15)(iv), 25.114(d)(18), 25.264(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f), of the Commission's rules. These requirements contained herein are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the
Lynne Montgomery, Satellite Division, International Bureau, at 202-418-2229 or via e-mail at
This is a summary of the Second Order on Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 11-93, adopted June 8, 2011 and released June 14, 2011. The full text of the Second Order on Reconsideration is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail
1. We adopt an off-axis power flux density (pfd) coordination trigger for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, require a minimum orbital separation of 0.2° between 17/24 GHz BSS space stations and DBS space stations, and place bounds on orbital inclination and eccentricity of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. We also revise our informational requirements to require 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicants to file predicted and measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information. Finally, we adopt procedures to enable pending applicants and existing authorization holders to
2.
3.
4.
5. A review of the orbital parameters of operating DBS space stations reveals that the largest orbital apogee-perigee variation is 26.3 km. Thus, the measurement range of ± 30° from the X axis in the X-Z plane proposed by DIRECTV should be sufficient to address cases where the 17/24 GHz BSS space station is operating with a non-biased configuration (
6. Similarly, a review of DBS orbital parameters indicates that most currently operating DBS satellites are stationkept in the north/south direction to within 0.075° of the equatorial plane. A similar north-south stationkeeping tolerance for a nearby 17/24 GHz BSS space station will yield a worst-case total inclination separation of 0.15° between the two space stations. If we were to adopt a ±20° range for measurements in planes rotated about the Z axis, as proposed by DIRECTV, the submitted transmitting antenna off-axis gain data would cover cases in which DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS spacecraft could be located as close as 0.45° in longitude along the GSO arc. Allowing for a worst-case inclination separation of 0.15° between the two space stations, a ±60° angular range of measurements made in planes rotated about the Z axis, as proposed by EchoStar, would cover space station longitudinal separations as closely spaced as 0.1°.
7. In specifying the angular ranges over which transmitting antenna off-axis gain data must be provided, we attempt to strike a balance among competing, but inter-related factors. Specifically, we seek to provide operators with the flexibility to locate at small orbital separations while adopting data submission requirements that are within ranges considered to be reasonable by commenters. Simultaneously, we seek to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate typical operating variations in orbital inclination and eccentricity. Thus, we believe that transmitting antenna off-axis gain measurements made over a range of ± 30° from the X axis in the X-Z plane, and over a range of ±60° in planes rotated about the Z axis, should permit accurate off-axis pfd information to be calculated for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations separated in longitude by as little as 0.1° from DBS space stations. EchoStar has advocated extending the measurement range to include a full ±120° in the X-Z plane. We do not believe, however, that the rationale offered by EchoStar justifies adopting a requirement for such a large quantity of measured data. We do, however, concur with EchoStar's assertion that the antenna gain data in the X-Z plane should be measured in 5° rather than 10° increments in light of the potential gain variation within a 10° span. Accordingly, we will require 17/24 GHz BSS applicants to submit transmitting antenna off-axis gain information in both polarizations in the X-Z plane over an angular range of ± 30° from the positive and the negative X axes, at 5° intervals, and through a range of ±60° in planes rotated from the X-Z plane about the Z axis at 10° intervals.
8. We note that antenna off-axis gain is a frequency dependent parameter, and performance characteristics will not be identical when measured at different frequencies within the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. Although commenters were in general agreement regarding the need to provide transmitting antenna off-axis gain data within the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, no commenter provided input regarding the granularity of the frequency steps at which gain measurements should be made. In order to adequately characterize the off-axis gain performance of the 17 GHz transmitting antennas, but without unduly burdening the applicant, we will require that off-axis antenna gain measurements be made at a minimum of three frequencies. These frequencies should be determined with respect to the entire portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band over which the space station is designed to transmit. Accordingly, at a minimum, transmitting antenna off-axis gain measurements should be made at the following three frequencies: 5 MHz above the lower edge of the band; at the band center frequency; and 5 MHz below the upper edge of the band.
9. The transmitting antenna off-axis gain data submission requirements discussed above are suitable for a space station that is operating with a non-biased orientation. As DIRECTV correctly points out, however, a space station eventually may be operated at a location different from the one where it was originally designed to operate. As a consequence, it may be rotated relative to the reference coordinate system in order to achieve the desired service area
10. We agree with DIRECTV that satellite bias must be taken into account in antenna off-axis performance information. We find, however, that the range of bias proposed by DIRECTV is overly large. Rather than presume a likely maximum bias and encumber all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants with information submission requirements intended to address this possible situation, we believe that a more reasonable approach is to require the applicant to take into account any anticipated satellite bias. Thus, we will require that 17/24 GHz BSS applicants submit transmitting antenna off-axis performance information to cover the specified angular measurement ranges that will account for planned bias relative to the reference coordinate system. Therefore, depending upon the direction and magnitude of the planned bias, the applicant must determine whether measurements must be taken over a greater angular range—when compared with the angular range over which measurement is required for a space station operating with zero bias—to accommodate any change of operating orientation. The applicant must submit its antenna performance measurements over this expanded angular range, and must explain its rationale for doing so, and indicate the planned spacecraft orientation bias in its application.
11. In addition, a 17/24 GHz BSS operator seeking to relocate a space station must include in its relocation application a discussion of any planned spacecraft orientation bias and, if necessary, submit additional transmitting antenna off-axis gain information to take into account such biased orientation. We note that if an operator is unable to provide this additional data, the Commission may be prevented from taking a favorable action on the operator's proposed modification. Thus, we caution 17/24 GHz BSS applicants that it is their responsibility to anticipate the possibility of future changes in operating orientation. Thus, while initial antenna performance information may be required over a particular angular range, applicants might consider measuring the antenna performance over a larger range, so that the antenna off-axis performance information will be available in the event the operator seeks a change in operating orientation at some point in the future.
12.
13.
14. We anticipate that most DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites will typically operate with orbits that are not highly inclined, in large part to avoid the need for satellite-tracking earth stations. In the reverse-band sharing environment, however, where space path interference occurring between two networks can be significantly influenced by relatively small variations in orbital inclination, we believe that more specificity regarding angular inclination is required. To ensure that the 17/24 GHz BSS space station remains within the range of locations relative to the DBS space station that is assumed by our angular measurement requirements, a maximum permissible orbital inclination must be established. Accordingly, we will require that operating 17/24 GHz BSS space stations be maintained in orbits that do not exceed 0.075° of inclination. Similarly, we will protect DBS networks from space path interference from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS networks only to the extent that the DBS space station is maintained in an orbit with an inclination less than 0.075°.
15. The 30° angular off-axis gain information in the X-Z plane assumes that at a longitudinal separation of 0.1° there will be no more than 40 km difference in the apogee and perigee values of the two adjacent spacecraft. Presuming that this difference can be equally distributed between the DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, we will require that 17/24 GHz BSS space stations be maintained in orbits whose orbital altitude does not exceed 35,806 km or fall below 35,766 km above the Earth's surface when transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS service-link signals. Similarly, we will protect DBS networks operating in the geostationary orbit from space path interference from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS networks only to the extent that the DBS space station orbit is maintained within these same maximum and minimum altitude
16.
17. In addition, it is possible that future new entrants may seek to operate at locations that are not designated in the Region 2 BSS and Feeder Link Plans, but that are in the vicinity of established 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. Thus, we believe that the off-axis gain information of the transmitting 17 GHz band antennas should be publicly available at all locations so that such future DBS operators can make the appropriate system design decisions necessary to avoid receiving harmful interference from an established 17/24 GHz BSS space station. The time between filing an application and launch of the space station can span several years, during which time applicants seeking to operate at locations other than established U.S. DBS cluster locations would have no access to any type of 17/24 GHz BSS antenna performance information upon which to base their choice of orbital location and other system design decisions. Moreover, although at present we have little empirical experience with predicting the off-axis gain performance characteristics of 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting antennas in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, it is our expectation that as familiarity with such systems and the associated analysis increases, we may place more confidence in the predicted characteristics. Accordingly, it is conceivable that in the future, operators may come to rely with increased certainty upon the results of predicted information, thereby lessening the need to wait for measured data as confirmation.
18. We believe that the general two-part approach best addresses the need to make some degree of information publicly available at the time of application, while simultaneously recognizing that the most accurate antenna characterization will not be available until space station construction is nearly complete. We also agree that measured antenna data should be submitted no later than 9 months prior to launch. We believe that requiring measured data no later than 9 months prior to launch best balances the interests of all parties, by providing the Commission and potentially affected DBS operators sufficient time to review the information and to carry out any necessary coordination, while maximizing the time in which space station operator's have to design, construct and test the antennas. We recognize, however, that requiring licensees to submit measured data no later than 9 months prior to launch can create a situation in which the interference environment in the vicinity of the 17/24 GHz BSS space station will not be well characterized until the antenna is built and operational—which could be several years after the predicted data is submitted. This level of uncertainty is not acceptable for subsequent DBS applicants seeking to locate nearby, and is particularly problematic when the 17/24 GHz BSS station locates near or within an existing DBS cluster. Accordingly, we seek an approach that will best balance the needs of both services by providing a reasonable degree of certainty to the DBS operator with regard to interference levels, while simultaneously permitting the 17/24 GHz BSS operator the flexibility to design and build its antenna.
19. To achieve these goals, we adopt the following approach. We will require all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants to submit with their applications predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information over the angular ranges described above. Applicants must provide pfd calculations that, on the basis of this predicted antenna gain data, (1) identify all prior-filed DBS networks at whose location that the applicant's pfd level exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
20. Further, at least 9 months prior to launch, we will require the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee to confirm the predicted data by submitting measured off-axis antenna gain information over the same angular ranges described above. Because the presence of the spacecraft body can significantly affect the off-axis antenna gain pattern, to the extent practical these measurements should be made under conditions as close to flight configuration as possible. This could be done with the antenna mounted on the spacecraft or may include the use of simulated spacecraft components. In addition, we require the licensee to: (1) Demonstrate that the pfd level at any prior-filed DBS space station does not exceed the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
21. We recognize that there is likely to be a number of years between the filing of the initial application containing the predicted off-axis antenna gain information and the filing of the measured data based upon testing of the actual antenna. This could lead to the situation in which a DBS applicant files an application after the 17/24 GHz BSS operator submits predicted data for its antenna, but before the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee submits the measured data. In such a case, the DBS applicant could choose an orbital location and system parameters for its DBS system that are optimized for an environment
22. In the event that the pfd level at any prior-filed or subsequently-filed DBS space station determined from the measured off-axis antenna gain information exceeds that determined from the earlier predicted data, the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee must modify its license (or amend its application, as appropriate) based upon this new information. Further, if the pfd level exceeds the coordination trigger value of −117 dBW/m
23. Where measured pfd levels exceed those predicted, and the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee is required to coordinate its operations under the above mentioned circumstances, the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee must provide certification that all affected DBS licensees acknowledge and do not object to the higher off-axis pfd levels. If the 17/24 GHz BSS licensee cannot coordinate (or does not wish to coordinate) its operations with affected DBS systems, it must instead adjust its operating parameters (
24.
25. Further, while we do not adopt service-specific rules regarding the cessation of emissions, our licensing process provides an opportunity to address this issue. While it is our intention that bounding the antenna off-axis pfd levels will ultimately provide the best mechanism for mitigating space path interference, its efficacy depends upon sufficient knowledge of the coordination situation between both space stations. Until such information can be better established for DBS receiving antennas, we believe that affording DBS operators the opportunity to raise concerns during the licensing process provides the best temporary remedy. Specifically, we believe that DBS operators are uniquely positioned to provide useful data regarding what level of interference would be sufficiently detrimental to their operations taking into account the distinct circumstances present at the orbital location and to provide this information to the Commission. Thus, we remain open to the possibility of placing additional operating constraints on a 17/24 GHz BSS space station seeking to operate in close proximity (
26. Where the Bureau has determined that a DBS operator has timely requested and fully justified inclusion of additional conditions on the grant of a 17/24 GHz BSS application, the Bureau should narrowly tailor the relief granted. Specifically, the conditions placed on the 17/24 GHz BSS operations should be limited to protecting U.S.-authorized DBS space stations (or non-U.S. authorized DBS space station granted market access to the United States) that were placed into service at their assigned location prior to the release date of this Order, and that are separated by 0.4° or less from the 17/24 GHz BSS space station. In these cases, the condition placed on the 17/24 GHz BSS operator would terminate if the DBS space station is relocated to a new orbital location regardless of whether that new location is within 0.4° of a current or planned 17/24 GHz BSS space station. The condition would also terminate at the end of the license term for the DBS space station at issue. We believe that in the short-term, when used as a temporary measure in combination with our other rules, this approach will provide the most effective means of balancing the competing needs of both services.
27. At present, U.S.-licensed DBS space stations and non-U.S. licensed DBS space stations granted market access to the United States are operating at only a small number of orbital locations. We have authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space stations to operate within 0.4° of a DBS space station at only one of these locations (
28.
29. We recognize that the authorizations issued under these technical rules may not be exactly what the applicants expected. This, by itself, is not a barrier to the adoption of these rules or the requirement that applicants amend their applications to come into compliance with the new rules. The Commission has the authority to apply new procedures to pending applications if doing so does not impair the rights an applicant possessed when it filed its application, increase an applicant's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties on applicants with respect to “transactions already completed.” Applicants do not gain any vested right merely by filing an application. Filing an application cannot be considered a “transaction already completed” for purposes of this analysis.
30. Similarly, the Public Notice will also require current authorization holders to file a modification application that demonstrates compliance with the rules we adopt here today, and to supplement the file with all required information. The Bureau will review the modification applications to determine whether they are substantially complete and acceptable for filing. The Bureau will return to the applicant as defective any modification applications that are not substantially complete.
31. The Commission may adopt rules that modify any station license of general applicability that affect a class of licensees, “if in its judgment such action will promote the public interest, convenience and necessity” and the modification may be accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking. The purpose of the Commission's actions here is to establish revised technical rules that will foster the provision of new services without causing harmful interference to a co-primary service—DBS. Neither DBS nor 17/24 GHz BSS operators possess the right to interfere with co-primary operations. We are not altering the past legal consequences of past actions of 17/24 GHz BSS authorization holders. Rather, the scheme we are adopting in this order is a means of bringing current authorization holders and pending applicants into compliance with general operational requirements. Moreover, the 17/24 GHz BSS authorization holders could not have had any reasonable expectation that the Commission would refrain from exercising its regulatory power to change the operational requirements of a service in cases where the public interest is best served by such change. Commission action that upsets expectations held by current authorization holders based on existing rules is not impermissibly retroactive. This is particularly true given the fact that all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees were aware at the time of grant that they would be subject to any additional requirements adopted as a result of this proceeding. In fact, all such licenses were granted with a condition on the face of the license stating that “[t]his authorization and all conditions contained herein are subject to the outcome of the Commission's rulemaking in IB Docket No. 06-123 and any requirements subsequently adopted therein.”
32. We invite both 17/24 GHz BSS applicants and authorization holders to file their predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain data at any time prior to the date that the rules adopted today become effective. We acknowledge that some parties may be close to possessing actual measured data, particularly those who actively participated and commented in this proceeding. If any of these entities have measured data, they are permitted to immediately file a modification (or amendment as appropriate) containing measured data rather than filing predicted data. No fee will be required for amendments or modifications filed for the sole purpose of amending a pending application or modifying a current authorization to comply with the rules adopted here today. Amendments that include changes in requested frequencies, orbital locations, or any other change not required by the rules adopted today, must include the appropriate fee.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), the
In the
The Commission will send a copy of this Report & Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Accordingly,
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed, in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted.
(d) * * *
(15) * * *
(iv) The information required in § 25.264(a) and (b).
(18) For space stations in the Direct Broadcast Satellite service or the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service, maximum orbital eccentricity.
(a) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) must provide a series of tables or graphs with its application, that contain the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information for each transmitting antenna in the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band. Using a Cartesian coordinate system wherein the X axis is tangent to the geostationary orbital arc with the positive direction pointing east,
(1) In the X-Z plane,
(2) In planes rotated from the X-Z plane about the Z axis, over a range of ±60 degrees relative to the equatorial plane, in increments of 10 degrees or less.
(3) In both polarizations.
(4) At a minimum of three measurement frequencies determined with respect to the entire portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band over which the space station is designed to transmit: 5 MHz above the lower edge of the band; at the band center frequency; and 5 MHz below the upper edge of the band.
(5) Over a greater angular measurement range, if necessary, to account for any planned spacecraft orientation bias or change in operating orientation relative to the reference coordinate system. The applicant must also explain its reasons for doing so.
(b) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz BSS must provide power flux density (pfd) calculations with its application that are based upon the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna gain information submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(1) The pfd calculations must be provided at the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations where the applicant's pfd level exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
(2) The pfd calculations must take into account the maximum permitted longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity of both the 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose location the coordination threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Demonstrate the extent to which the applicant's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(3) If the calculated pfd level is in excess of the threshold level of −117 dBW/m
(c) No later than 9 months prior to launch, each 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicant or authorization holder must confirm the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information provided in accordance with § 25.114(d)(15)(iv) by submitting measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information over the angular ranges, measurement frequencies and polarizations described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. The transmitting antenna off-axis gain information should be measured under conditions as close to flight configuration as possible.
(d) No later than 9 months prior to launch, each 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicant or authorization holder must provide pfd calculations based upon the measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information that is submitted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section as follows:
(1) The pfd calculations must be provided:
(i) At the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, where the applicant's pfd level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
(ii) At the location of any subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station where the applicant's pfd level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
(2) The pfd calculations must take into account the maximum permitted longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity of both the 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose location the coordination threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Demonstrate the extent to which the applicant's or licensee's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(e) If the pfd level calculated from the measured data submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section is in excess of the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(1) At the location of any prior-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, then the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite operator must either:
(i) Coordinate its operations that are in excess of the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the prior-filed U.S. DBS space station, the pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(2) At the location of any subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, where the pfd level submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, is also in excess of the pfd level calculated on the basis of the predicted data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section that were on file with the Commission at the time the DBS space station application was filed, then the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite operator must either:
(i) Coordinate with the affected subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station operator all of its operations that are either in excess of the pfd level calculated on the basis of the predicted antenna off-axis gain data, or are in excess of the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station, either the pfd level calculated on the basis of the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna gain data, or the threshold pfd level of −117 dBW/m
(3) No coordination or adjustment of operating parameters is required in cases where the DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS operating frequencies do not overlap.
(f) The 17/24 GHz BSS applicant or licensee must modify its license, or amend its application, as appropriate, based upon new information:
(1) If the pfd levels submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, are in excess of those submitted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section at the location of any prior-filed or subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(1)of this section, or
(2) If the 17/24 GHz BSS operator adjusts its operating parameters in accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2)(ii) or this section.
(g) Absent an explicit agreement between operators to permit more closely spaced operations, U.S. authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space stations and U.S. authorized DBS space stations with co-frequency assignments may not be licensed to operate at locations separated by less than 0.2 degrees in orbital longitude.
(h) All operational 17/24 GHz BSS space stations must be maintained in geostationary orbits that:
(1) Do not exceed 0.075° of inclination.
(2) Operate with an apogee less than or equal to 35,806 km above the surface of the Earth, and with a perigee greater than or equal to 35,766 km above the surface of the Earth (
(i) U.S. authorized DBS networks may claim protection from space path interference arising from the reverse-band operations of U.S. authorized 17/24 GHz BSS networks to the extent that the DBS space station operates within the bounds of inclination and eccentricity listed below. When the geostationary orbit of the DBS space station exceeds these bounds on inclination and eccentricity, it may not claim protection from any additional space path interference arising as a result of its inclined or eccentric operations and may only claim protection as if it were operating within the bounds listed below:
(1) The DBS space station's orbit does not exceed 0.075° of inclination, and
(2) The DBS space station's orbit maintains an apogee less than or equal to 35,806 km above the surface of the Earth, and a perigee greater than or equal to 35,766 km above the surface of the Earth (
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of regulatory guidance.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) sought public comment on three issues related to the applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operators of farm vehicles: first, the interpretation of interstate commerce as it applies to movement of farm products; second, whether farmers operating under share-cropping agreements are common or contract carriers; and third, whether FMCSA should issue new guidance on implements of husbandry. After considering comments from the public, FMCSA has determined that no further guidance is needed on interpreting interstate commerce and implements of husbandry. FMCSA is issuing guidance that farmers operating under share-cropping or similar arrangements are not common or contract carriers and, therefore, are eligible for the CDL exemption if a State elects to adopt the exemption.
August 15, 2011.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone (202) 366-4325.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (74, 49 Stat. 543, August 9, 1935) (1935 Act) provides that the Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (98, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (1984 Act) provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations that ensure that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 211 of the 1984 Act also grants the Secretary broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10), respectively).
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (99, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, October 27, 1986) (1986 Act) directs the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). The States must use those standards in issuing commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) (49 U.S.C. 31311, 31314).
The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.73(L), (g), and (e)(1) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by the 1935 Act, the 1984 Act, and the 1986 Act, respectively.
On May 31, 2011, FMCSA issued a notice seeking public comment on three issues related to the applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operators of farm vehicles (76 FR 31279). Recognizing that changes in regulatory guidance (if implemented by a State) could have an impact on an individual farmer, the Agency sought as much public involvement and comment as possible on these issues.
It is worth repeating that neither the May 31 notice nor today's notice propose or proposed any rule change or new safety requirements. Instead, the Agency sought feedback from farm organizations, farmers, and the public on the agency's long-standing interpretations of existing rules, so it could then determine whether any adjustments were needed to improve understanding of the current safety regulations.
First, the Agency sought comment on whether it needed to provide additional guidance or information to explain the distinction between intra- and interstate commerce in the agricultural industry. Second, the Agency asked whether it should distinguish between indirect and direct compensation in deciding whether a farm vehicle driver is eligible for the exception to the commercial driver's license (CDL) requirements in 49 CFR 383.3(d)(1). Third, the Agency asked for comments on how best to define implements of husbandry so that such equipment is exempted from safety regulations in a uniform, practical
The issue of what constitutes interstate commerce has been adjudicated many times over many decades, and FMCSA's interpretations are governed by the findings of the Federal courts. Although the various cases are heavily fact-specific, the general rule is set forth in the Agency's guidance to Q. 6 under 49 CFR 390.3, which is posted on our Web site:
Interstate commerce is determined by the essential character of the movement, manifested by the shipper's fixed and persistent intent at the time of the shipment, and is ascertained from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transportation. When the intent of the transportation being performed is interstate in nature, even when the route is within the boundaries of a single State, the driver and CMV are subject to the FMCSRs.
Many commenters misinterpreted FMCSA's request for input on whether it needed to provide additional guidance on interstate versus intrastate commerce. Commenters almost uniformly opposed any interpretation of interstate commerce that would consider movement of products from a farm to a grain elevator in the same state as interstate commerce. The commenters argued that the farmer who moves a crop to a local elevator and sells it has no control over its ultimate destination and no knowledge of that destination, which could change from sale to sale. The elevator mixes crops from multiple farmers and sells the mixed crops without the farmers' involvement. Some of the crop may move out of state, but in many cases, the crop is sold to local processors. In either case, the farmer has no way of knowing the destination. They also argued that the movement from farm to elevator is generally local—5 to 10 miles—on rural roads with little traffic. They stated that FMCSA has not identified any safety risk that would justify imposing interstate operating rules on these local, seasonal moves. The primary concern of commenters expressed by many farm organizations was that by designating these farm-to-elevator moves as interstate the farmers would have to obtain a CDL and comply with other operating rules. The commenters noted the cost of obtaining a CDL and a medical certificate as well as the issue that CDLs are only available to those 21 years old or older. Commenters stated that many farm vehicles are driven by younger family members.
The Agency has concluded that new regulatory guidance concerning the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce is not necessary. FMCSA believes that previously published guidance, such as that referenced in the May 31, 2011, notice, is useful and that attempting to address more scenarios in new regulatory guidance would not be helpful to the agricultural industry or enforcement officials. To the extent that novel fact-specific questions arise, the Agency will work with the parties involved to provide a clarification for the specific scenario. FMCSA notes that the farm exemption from the CDL rules is not linked to intrastate or interstate commerce. A State may exempt farmers from the CDL requirements if they operate in interstate commerce provided that they meet the other requirements of the exemption.
Commenters opposed any interpretation of the rules that would make a tenant farmer a contract carrier. They stated that for those with share cropping agreements, which can be either formal or informal, the farmer compensates the landowner by paying a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the crop after the crop is delivered to the grain elevator. They argued that because the farmer owns the crop until it is delivered for sale, whether the farmer is compensated directly or indirectly for transporting the grain is irrelevant. The farmer should be considered in private transportation.
FMCSA appreciates the information that it received on this issue and agrees with commenters that tenants should not be considered contract carriers. Since 1935, the Federal government has been required to regulate the safety, but not the commercial affairs, of carriers whose principal business is not transportation. This is usually called the “primary business” test (
Many commenters misinterpreted FMCSA's notice on implements of husbandry. FMCSA was seeking comment on whether it needed to issue additional interpretative guidance to clarify that implements of husbandry, such as tractors, cultivators, reapers, etc., were not considered CMVs even if they are occasionally driven on public roads. Many commenters, however, assumed that FMCSA intended to define this equipment as CMVs, which would expose the vehicles to different State requirements (higher registration fees, higher insurance requirements, etc.) and might require a CDL for the driver. They opposed any such extension of the CMV definition. Those commenters that addressed FMCSA's proposed guidance generally supported it, but made a number of suggestions for defining implements of husbandry based on varying State definitions and recommended restrictions that could be placed on these vehicles (e.g., speed limits, warning signs, distance traveled, etc.).
As FMCSA stated in the notice, its goal was to ensure that implements of husbandry were not considered CMVs for its purposes. Based on the variety of
The FMCSA is sensitive to the critical role agriculture plays in our economy and farmers in our communities and it greatly appreciates the public comments to its May 31, 2011, notice. These comments have helped us better understand the complexity of farm lease arrangements and today's use of farm equipment on public roads.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Request for comments.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is publishing for comment Class II Gaming Regulation Proposals submitted on July 28, 2011 by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PBCI) on behalf of the Tribal Gaming Working Group (TGWG). PBCI and TGWG state their proposals were drafted with the intent of ensuring that all controls are covered in the current regulations, while at the same time removing some of the strict procedural steps and tasks not appropriately characterized as standards. PBCI and TGWG also assert that the current regulations are difficult to use and apply due to duplication across multiple sections, dated terminology, and procedures that are obsolete and not reflective of current technology.
Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2011.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods, however, please note that comments sent by electronic mail are strongly encouraged.
•
•
•
•
Lael Echo-Hawk, Counselor to the Chair, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 202-632-7009; email:
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) is requesting comments on the Class II Gaming Regulation Proposals submitted on July 28, 2011 by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (PBCI) on behalf of the Tribal Gaming Working Group (TGWG). PBCI and TGWG state their proposals were drafted with the intent of ensuring that all controls are covered in 25 CFR Part 543, while at the same time removing some of the strict procedural steps and tasks not appropriately characterized as standards. PBCI and TGWG also assert that the current regulations are difficult to use and apply due to duplication across multiple sections, dated terminology, and procedures that are obsolete and not reflective of current technology.
You can access publicly available documents related to this document at
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
2. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or date that you used.
3. If you estimate potential costs of burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
5. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
NIGC is announcing the availability of Class II Gaming Regulation proposals from PCBI and TGWG and requesting comment from the public.
Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards, Class II Technical Standards, and related Guidance and Bulletin documents.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing.
We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Kentucky Regulatory Program (hereinafter, the “Kentucky program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). On May 10, 2011, Kentucky submitted proposed bonding revisions to the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) as authorized by House Bill 385 (HB 385), which passed during the State's regular 2011 legislative session. HB 385 amends the Kentucky Revised Statutes to require that, as of the effective date of the Act, any determination by the Energy and Environmental Cabinet (EEC) to change a bond requirement or bond amount
This document gives the times and locations that the Kentucky program and this submittal are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments until 4 p.m., E.S.T., September 14, 2011. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on September 9, 2011. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., E.S.T., on August 30, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by “SATS No. KY-254-FOR; Docket Number OSM-2011-0005” by either of the following two methods:
Joseph L. Blackburn, Field Office Director, Lexington Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503, (859) 260-3900.
Carl E. Campbell, Commissioner, Department for Natural Resources, 2 Hudson Hollow, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, Telephone: (502) 564-6940.
Joseph L. Blackburn,
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Kentucky program on May 18, 1982. You can find background information on the Kentucky program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Kentucky program in the May 18, 1982,
On March 17, 2011, Governor Beshear signed House Bill (HB) 385 which was approved by the 2011 Kentucky General Assembly. HB 385 amends Kentucky Revised Statutes 350.060 to require as of the effective date of the Act that any determination by the Energy and Environmental Cabinet (EEC) to change a bond requirement or bond amount currently in use will result in a new administrative regulation that includes all bond requirements including the bond amount; proscribe bond amounts from being instituted as policy; require after the effective date of the Act an administrative regulation that fails to include bond amounts to be declared automatically deficient.
The State proposes to delete “The cabinet shall” and insert “Within thirty (30) days of a cabinet determination of a need to change a bond protocol currently in use, the cabinet shall immediately.” This proposed State revision falls under the Federal provisions at 30 CFR 800.14 and section 509 of SMCRA.
The State proposes to add new language at the end of (11) to ensure that Bond protocols will include the formula for establishing the amount of the bond or be automatically declared deficient in accordance to KRS Chapter 13A. This proposed State revision falls under the Federal provisions at 30 CFR 800.15 and section 509 of SMCRA.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the Kentucky program now satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve these revisions, they will become part of the Kentucky program.
If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications. We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 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. We will not consider anonymous comments.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, that if possible, each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If there is only limited interest in participating in a public hearing, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service proposes to revise the
We must receive your comments on or before September 14, 2011.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service®, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. Interested parties may review and photocopy all written comments at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Email comments that contain the name and address of the commenter, may be sent to:
Craig Vance at 202-268-7595, or Susan Thomas at 202-268-8069.
In this proposed rule, the Postal Service defines letter-sized FSM, provides detailed standards about the basic elements of all FSM letter-sized pieces, and introduces “panels” as a basic element for constructing FSMs. Additionally, optional creative elements that are currently found in FSM designs, but are not defined in the DMM, are added.
To improve the quality of FSMs, the USPS, in collaboration with the mailing industry, implemented a series of tests designed to identify the characteristics of FSMs that could be processed successfully on automated letter-sorting machines. Industry members, recommended through the Mailers Technical Advisory Council (MTAC), Postal Customer Councils (PCC) and the Business Service Network, were asked to provide sample mailpieces for testing. A wide array of mail owners, mail service providers, and vendors participated. The collaboration resulted in a better understanding of the capabilities and needs of the mailing community and enabled the Postal Service to align terms commonly used in the mailing industry with those in the proposed standards. Working together, the Postal Service attempted to strike a balance between innovation and mailpiece machinability.
The outcome of this collaboration is a streamlined framework of proposed standards that aligns with existing letter-mail standards, provides specific information, and clearly defines the characteristics of additional design elements for mailers who create FSM mailpieces. Folded self-mailer maximum dimensions and weights are now proposed to align with other unenveloped letter standards. The dimensions will better delineate envelope and oversized cards when compared to unenveloped-type mail. Improved standards that are clear and easy to understand will encourage consistency and level-set the playing field minimizing delays in production and will help the Postal Service to control costs.
Postal letter sorting equipment is capable of processing letters at the rate of 10 pieces per second. When prepared according to current standards and processed at that speed, some FSM designs have higher rates of damage and cause jams in letter sorting equipment that result in diverting those pieces to flat sorters or manual handling. Both alternate processes are time consuming and costly. This proposed rule provides standards for FSM and other unenveloped letter designs so those mailpieces can better withstand the rigors of letter automation processing.
The collaborative testing focused on the primary characteristics of folded self-mailers. Four characteristics proved to be the most important—dimensions, basis weight of the paper that forms the
Testing revealed a strong correlation between higher damage, equipment jam rates, and lower throughput as the basis weight of the paper decreased or as the size of the FSM increased. The closure method and placement of closures greatly affected machinability. Continuous glue lines were determined to be the optimal method of sealing a FSM. Use of a continuous glue line has been severely limited in the mailing industry, because the existing equipment used by many is not currently capable of producing continuous glue lines. As an alternative, the Postal Service introduced elongated glue lines (dashes) and patterns of glue spots to simulate glue lines. Testing also revealed that a one tab closure produces an insufficient seal, so we propose that two or more tabs be required depending on the design and total weight of the mailpiece. Other factors that affected automation compatibility were:
• Mailpiece thickness.
• Total piece weight.
• Fold orientation.
• Thickness of attachments or enclosures within a mailpiece.
• Flap size, style, and orientation.
• Number of panels.
Panels are created when sheets of paper are folded—each two-sided section created by folding is called a panel. The number of folds determines the number of panels within the mailpiece. In addition to these primary characteristics, the following optional design elements were also considered during testing:
• Loose inserts secured in pockets.
• Attachments to the interior and exterior of the mailpiece.
• Die-cut elements.
• Perforations.
The aggregate data generated from testing was analyzed using Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodologies to develop a framework of potential minimum and maximum standards. The initial framework was based on optimized standards represented as 10 basic categories of FSMs. This framework was provided to the participants of the FSM study and meetings were conducted to begin the refinement process and develop a draft of proposed revised DMM standards. This collaborative process spanned six months. In addition to these meetings, the USPS reached out to others in the design and production segments of the industry to gain more specific knowledge and insight into their capabilities and needs. Based on participant feedback, the Postal Service restructured the original framework, aligned break-points, and crafted proposed standards beginning with a basic folded self-mailer profile. Additional optional creative elements were then incorporated to provide more design flexibility.
As the Postal Service worked through refinement of the initial proposed framework, built on Lean Six Sigma methodology, an attempt was made to find the balance between creativity and machinability that also allowed additional design options for FSM. The updated standards will be mutually beneficial.
A Folded Self-Mailer Reference Material document was developed as supporting information to this proposed rule. The document summarizes information of the proposed standards, includes illustrations that demonstrate some of the options for fold style, and includes closure methods and optional elements that may be incorporated into a basic folded self-mailer letter. The document can be found at:
Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comments on the following proposed revisions to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR Part 111 is revised to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of
[Delete current text of 3.14 in its entirety and replace with the following:]
A folded self-mailer is formed of panels that are created when one or more unbound sheets of paper are folded together and sealed to make a letter-size mailpiece. The number of panels is determined by the number of sheets in the mailpiece and the number of times the sheets are folded.
Folded self-mailers are:
a. Length: A minimum of 5 inches and a maximum of 10
b. Height: A minimum of 3
c. Thickness: A minimum of 0.007 inch; (0.009 inch if the height exceeds 4
d. Maximum Weight: 3 ounces.
e. Rectangular, with four square corners and parallel opposite sides.
f. Within an aspect ratio (length divided by height) of 1.3 to 2.5, inclusive (see 601.1.4).
g. Maximum number of panels, bi-fold, tri-fold and oblongs: 8.
Exception: Quarter folded self-mailers made of a minimum of 100 lb book grade paper may have 4 panels and those made of 55 lb newsprint must have at least 8 panels and may contain up to 16 panels.
Panels are created when a sheet of paper is folded. When a folded self-mailer is made of multiple sheets, multiply the number of sheets by the number of panels created when folding a single sheet to determine the total number of panels. The following conditions apply:
a. Panels created by folding must be equal or nearly equal in size.
b. The final folded edge must be the bottom of a folded self-mailer unless prepared as an oblong. The final folded edge of an oblong folded self-mailer must be the leading (right) edge.
c. Shorter panels must be internal to the mailpiece, covered by a full-size panel, and count toward the maximum number of panels.
d. The final folded panel creates the back (non-address) side of the mailpiece. The open edge of the back panel must be at the top or within 1
e. Folding methods and the subsequent number of panels created when folding a single sheet of paper are:
1. Bi-fold: Folded once forming two panels.
2. Tri-fold: Folded twice forming three panels.
3. Oblong: Paper with one elongated dimension and parallel opposite sides folded once to form two rectangular panels. The final folded edge must be the leading (shorter) edge.
4. Quarter-fold: Folded two times with each fold at a right angle (perpendicular) to the preceding fold. One sheet of paper quarter-folded creates four panels.
f. Flaps are formed when an extended portion of the final panel is folded over an interior panel and affixed to the unaddressed side of the mailpiece and must meet the following conditions:
1. Flaps begin at the top of the mailpiece and end one inch or more above the bottom edge. Flaps must be at least 1
2. Flaps must be secured with a seal as described in 3.14.4.
3. Die-cut shaped flaps are firmly secured with a tab, glue line, glue spots or elongated glue lines. A
4. Flaps on oblong mailpieces are at least 5 inches long at the longest point when measured from the leading edge and end more than one inch from the trailing edge.
g. Flaps and pockets prepared within folded self-mailers to stabilize enclosures are not counted as panels.
Folded self-mailers may be sealed using tabs or glue under the following conditions:
a.
1. To seal all bi-fold and tri-fold self-mailers and quarter-folded self-mailers that weigh one ounce or less, affix one tab either on the top edge within one inch of the leading and one tab within one inch of the trailing edge or affix one tab on the leading and one tab on the trailing edges within one inch of the top.
2. To seal oblong folded self-mailers, affix two tabs in the center of the top and trailing edges or on the trailing edge within one inch of the top and bottom. Tabs may not be applied to the bottom of an oblong mailpiece.
3. To seal quarter-folded mailpieces that weigh more than one ounce and quarter-folded mailpieces made of newsprint, affix two tabs on the leading and trailing edges within 1 inch from the top, with one additional tab affixed on the lower leading edge
b.
1. Continuous glue lines at least
2. Three or four glue spots at least
3. Three or four elongated glue lines. Seal folded self-mailers that weigh up to one ounce with lines at least
4. Glue spots and elongated glue lines should be distributed evenly along open edges.
5. Quarter-folded self-mailers must be sealed with tabs.
All references in 3.0 to paper basis weight are for book-grade paper unless otherwise stated (see 3.2). When multiple optional design elements are incorporated in a single mailpiece, the standards for the design element with the highest paper weight and corresponding sealing methods apply. Folded self-mailer paper weights and sealing methods are:
a. Basic bi-fold, tri-fold, and oblong folded self-mailers as described in 3.14.3:
1. Up to 1 ounce: 70 lb paper sealed with a continuous glue line, three glue spots; or elongated glue lines under 3.14.4b; or two 1-inch tabs under 3.14.4a1 and 3.14.4a2.
2. Over 1 ounce: 80 lb paper sealed with a continuous glue line, four glue spots; or four elongated glue lines under 3.14.4b; or two 1
b. Basic quarter folded self-mailers as described in 3.14.3:
1. Up to 1 ounce: 70 lb paper sealed with two 1-inch tabs.
2. Over 1 ounce: 80 lb paper sealed with three 1
3. Newsprint: 55 lb minimum paper. Seal pieces with three 1
c. Optional Design Elements: Die-cut openings and perforated panes. Folded self-mailers with die cut openings in the exterior panels as described in 3.14.6 or perforated panes as described in 3.14.7 must meet the following:
1. Up to 1 ounce: 100 lb paper sealed with glue under 3.14.4b, or two 1
2. Over 1 ounce: 120 lb paper sealed with glue under 3.14.4b, or two 2-inch tabs under 3.14.4a1 and 3.14.4a2 or three 1
d. Optional Design Elements: Loose enclosures and attachments. For folded self-mailers that have loose enclosures as described in 3.14.8 or attachments as described in 3.14.9, the following applies:
1. Up to 1 ounce: 80 lb paper sealed with glue under 3.14.4b or two 1
2. Over 1 ounce: 100 lb paper sealed with glue under 3.14.4b, or two 2-inch tabs under 3.14.4a1 and 3.14.4a2 or three 1
Folded self-mailers may be produced with two distinct types of die cut elements in the exterior panels: address windows or die-cut reveal openings used to draw attention to important information within the mailpiece. Die cut openings may not be used to create die cut punched holes (that exist in the same location on all layers and panels so that there is an opening through the entire mailpiece). Prepare die cut elements as follows:
a. Die cut address windows (used to convey address information) must conform to all standards for window envelopes under 601.6.4 and meet the following additional conditions:
1. Windows may be up to 2 inches high by 4 inches long.
2. When an address window appears on a mailpiece, no other die cut shapes may be made on the exterior panels.
b. Die cut reveal openings (used to reveal the contents of the mailpiece), are:
1. Limited to two on only one of the external panels.
2. Either circular with a 2-inch maximum diameter or rectangular and a maximum of 1
3. Placed at least 1
4. Placed at least 5 inches from the leading edge and 1
5. Positioned at least 1
c. A single
Folded self-mailers may be prepared with strips or panes that are pulled open to reveal the contents. These design elements are placed on the unaddressed side of the mailpiece and may be rectangular, circular, or oval shaped. Perforations, a row of small holes punched in a sheet of paper so that a part can be torn easily, are used to create the openings. They may be pull-open strips, pop-out, or pop-open panes subject to the following prepared requirements:
a. Two perforated lines creating a pull open strip must be parallel and spaced at least
b. Pop-out panes have perforations around the entire perimeter. The full perimeter of the pop-out is a maximum of 4 inches long by 4 inches high, and:
1. Have panes placed at least 1 inch from any edge.
2. Are 2mm cut (max)/2mm tie (min) ratio.
3. When using two panes, must be spaced at least 1 inch apart.
4. May not have any address elements appear in perforated openings.
c. Pop-open panes have perforations on three sides and meet the following conditions:
1. The full perimeter of the pull-open panel is a maximum of 4 inches long by 4 inches high.
2. If prepared with multiple panes, they must be spaced at least 1 inch apart.
3. Panes must be placed at least 1 inch from all edges.
4. Perforation patterns have 2 mm cut (max)/2 mm tie (min) ratio.
d. Perforated panes may not be on mailpieces with die-cut design elements or on any mailpiece made of newsprint.
Loose enclosures included within a folded self-mailer must be made of paper under the following conditions:
a. Must be secured within a folded self-mailer to ensure containment and prevent excessive shift during processing.
b. May be inserted in an interior pocket or secured by any other method that prevents excessive shift during processing. Pockets are not counted as panels.
c. Enclosures are fully covered by the outer panels of the mailpiece.
d. Folded self-mailers with die-cut openings may contain enclosures if the inserted material is larger than the die cut opening.
e. Enclosed material does not exceed the maximum thickness of:
1. 0.05 inch thick for weights up to 1 ounce.
2. 0.09 inch thick for weights over 1 ounce.
Attachments may be secured on the outside of a folded self-mailer under 3.13. Attachments may be secured within folded self-mailers under the following conditions:
a. The attachment is affixed to an inside panel and secured it at least
b. The attached material may not exceed a maximum thickness of:
1. 0.05 inch thick for weights up to 1 ounce.
2. 0.09 inch thick for weights over 1 ounce.
c. Multiple attachments must remain nearly uniform in thickness.
d. When multiple attachments are affixed to separate panels in stacked alignment, the combined thickness of the attachments must be equal to or less than the maximum thickness.
e. When multiple attachments are affixed adjacent to each other across the length of a mailpiece, the thickest attachment must be equal to or less than the maximum thickness.
f. Quarter-folded self-mailer may only have one internal attachment not exceeding 0.012 inch thick. The attachment must be secured at least 0.5 inch from all edges.
Printing addresses in a center or left-justified position within the optical character reader (OCR) area under 2.1 is recommended when folded self-mailers are prepared with uncoated paper.
Lunch-bag style mailpieces consists of two symmetrical horizontal panels sealed together along top and bottom edges. Lunch-bag style mailpieces must meet the following conditions:
a. Join panels using
b. If flaps are used, they must be a minimum of at least 1
c. All paper weight and sealing requirements in 3.14.5c and 3.14.5d must be met.
When mailpieces have tear-off opening devices on the leading or trailing edge, the unfolded edges must be sealed with an adhesive (glue) or by a cohesive method. Unlike glue that will adhere to any surface, a cohesive seal requires two fixative patterns placed on top of each other to create a bond. The top-sealed edges may have a perforated horizontal line no lower than
a. Tear off strips may be up to
b. Tear lines (single lines of perforations) on pieces that weigh one ounce or less, must be 1 mm cut (max)/1 mm tie (min) ratio.
c. Tear lines (single lines of perforations) on pieces that weigh more than one ounce must be 1 mm cut (max)/2 mm tie (min) ratio.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Comments concerning this Site must be received by September 14, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND—1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All documents in the docket are listed in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 401 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402,
Diane Salkie, Remedial Project Manager, by mail at Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone at 212-637-4370; fax at 212-637-4393; or e-mail at
In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's
For additional information, see the direct final notice of deletion which is located in the Rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Designation of Medically Underserved Populations and Health Professional Shortage Areas.
Meetings will be held on September 20, 2011, 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.; September 21, 2011, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and September 22, 2011, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Meetings will be held at the Legacy Hotel and Meeting Centre, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 881-2300.
For more information, please contact Jessica Sitko, Office of Policy Coordination,
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments during the meeting on Friday afternoon. Requests from the public to make oral comments or to provide written comments to the Committee should be sent to Jessica Sitko at the contact address above at least 10 days prior to the first day of the meeting, Wednesday, September 20. The meetings will be open to the public as indicated above, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed above at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
In proposed rule document 2011-16640 appearing on pages 39063 through 39067 in the issue of Tuesday, July 5, 2011, make the following corrections:
1. On page 39064, in the table labeled “Bossier Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas”, in the second row in reference to “Red Chute Bayou”, “Approximately 1,125 feet downstream of State Route 612 (Sligo Road)” should appear as the final value in the “Location of Referenced Elevation**” column.
2. On the same page, in the same table, in the second row in reference to “Red Chute Bayou”, “+156” should appear as the final value in the “Effective” column.
3. On the same page, in the same table, in the second row in reference to “Red Chute Bayou”, “+157” should appear as the final value in the “Modified” column.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
On June 20, 2008, FEMA published in the
Comments are to be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7786, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
In the proposed rule published at 73 FR 35112, in the June 20, 2008, issue of the
In the correction published at 73 FR 52234, in the September 9, 2008, issue of the
In the correction published at 74 FR 22151, in the May 12, 2009, issue of the
In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published for Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Proposed rule; correction.
On June 3, 2010, FEMA published in the
Comments pertaining to the Rowell Creek BFEs, from the location approximately 650 feet upstream of Secluded Avenue to the location approximately 0.51 mile upstream of the intersection of Inspiration Avenue and D Avenue, and comments pertaining to the Sal Taylor Creek Tributary 2 BFEs, from the location at the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek to the location approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek Tributary 3, are to be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1126, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (e-mail)
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064 or (e-mail)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings.
In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 31347, in the June 3, 2010, issue of the
The proposed rule incorrectly listed the Rowell Creek location description for the modified BFE of 80 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, as being approximately 650 feet upstream of Secluded Avenue. The correct location of this modified BFE is approximately 0.51 mile upstream of the intersection of Inspiration Avenue and D Avenue. The proposed rule also incorrectly listed the modified BFEs for Sal Taylor Creek Tributary 2, for both the location at the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek and the location approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek Tributary 3. The modified BFE for the location at the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek was listed as 61 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The correct modified BFE for that location is 62 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The modified BFE for the location approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence with Sal Taylor Creek Tributary 3 was listed as 67 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The correct modified BFE for that location is 68 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The effective BFEs were listed correctly in the proposed rule.
This proposed rule correction is reopening the comment period for Rowell Creek, for the proposed BFE at the location approximately 650 feet upstream of Secluded Avenue, where a modified BFE of 67 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, is proposed, due to the error in listing the location description for the Rowell Creek BFE of 80 feet, referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, in the previously published proposed rule at 75 FR 31347. This proposed rule also is opening a comment period for Rowell Creek from the location approximately 650 feet upstream of Secluded Avenue to the location approximately 0.51 mile upstream of the intersection of
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of 5-year reviews.
We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Region, announce the availability of 5-year reviews for five ESUs of Pacific salmon (
Additional information about the 5-year review process, including copies of the 5-year review reports, may be obtained by visiting the NMFS Southwest Regional Office Web site at
Craig Wingert at the above address or at (562) 980-4021.
Under the ESA, a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species must be maintained. The list is published at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that NMFS conduct a review of listed species under its jurisdiction at least once every 5 years (“5-year reviews”). Pursuant to section 4(c)(2)(B) of the ESA, we determine whether any species should be delisted and removed from the list, reclassified from endangered to threatened, or reclassified from threatened to endangered on the basis of such reviews. In conducting 5-year reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data, including new information that has become available since the last listing determination or most recent status review of a species.
On March 18, 2010, NMFS announced the initiation of 5-year reviews for listed Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (75 FR 13082). Both ESUs and DPSs are treated as “species” under the ESA and we use the term “species” to refer to both in the remainder of this notice. In the March 18, 2010 announcement, we requested new information regarding the biological status of these ESUs and DPSs and the factors that affect them from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, environmental entities, and other interested parties.
This notice of availability addresses our completed 5-year reviews for: (1) Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon; (2) California Coastal Chinook salmon; (3) Central California Coast coho salmon; (4) Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon; (5) Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon; and (6) Central Valley steelhead. The results of 5-year reviews for the other ESUs and DPSs discussed in the March 18, 2010 notice of initiation will be announced in forthcoming notices from the NMFS Southwest and Northwest Regions, respectively.
We used a two-step process to complete the reviews. First, we asked scientists from our Southwest Fisheries Science Center to collect and analyze new information about each species' viability. To evaluate each species' viability, our scientists applied the agency's Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) framework, which relies on evaluating four key population parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Using this framework, they compiled and evaluated all new relevant information on these four parameters and then updated the overall viability status of each species. They also considered new genetic and biogeographic information related to each species' freshwater and estuarine geographic boundaries. At the end of this process, the Center prepared a report detailing the results and conclusions from their analyses.
Fishery biologists from the Southwest Region and its field offices completed the second step in the review process. These biologists reviewed new information on the five ESA 4(a)(1) factors considered when determining if a species should be listed as threatened or endangered, including: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and, (5) other natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. They also evaluated new information on hatchery programs associated with each species to inform an updated assessment about whether specific hatchery programs should be considered part of the species that were evaluated. In doing so, they applied our Policy Addressing the Role of Artificially Propagated Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in Listing Determinations under the ESA (70 FR 37204). The 5-year review reports prepared by the Southwest Region, the Southwest Science Center's updated
With regard to the salmon and steelhead species subject to this notice of availability, we evaluated information that has become available on the species since they were previously reviewed in 2005 (70 FR 37160) and 2006 (71 FR 834), respectively. After considering the best available information, our 5-year reviews recommend that each of these species should remain listed as determined in 2005 and 2006. Our reviews also recommend that the southern boundaries of two species (California Coastal Chinook salmon and Central California Coast coho salmon ESUs) should be extended. Finally, our reviews also recommend that six hatchery stocks should be removed from the California Coastal Chinook salmon ESU based on information demonstrating the hatchery programs propagating these stocks have been terminated since the last status review.
In furtherance of these recommendations, we have already proposed to change the southern boundary of Central California Coast coho salmon (76 FR 6383). We will consider proposing the adjustment of the species boundary and hatchery status for California Coastal Chinook salmon in a separate rulemaking. We conclude that these 5-year reviews meet the requirements of the ESA.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of 5-year reviews.
NMFS Northwest Region announces the availability of 5-year reviews for 11 evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) of Pacific salmon (
Additional information about the 5-year reviews may be obtained by visiting the NMFS Northwest Regional Office Web site:
Eric Murray (503) 231-2378.
Under the ESA, a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species must be maintained. The list is published at 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 223.102 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether any species should be removed from the list (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. During 5-year reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data available, including new information that has become available since the last listing determination or most recent status review of a species.
On March 18, 2010, the NMFS Northwest and Southwest Regional Offices announced initiation of 5-year reviews of Pacific salmon ESUs and steelhead DPSs (75 FR 13082). Both ESUs and DPSs are treated as `species' under the ESA, and we use the term `species' to refer to both in the remainder of this notice. At the time of our announcement, we requested information on species viability, protective efforts, and threats to the species from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, environmental entities, and other interested parties.
This notice addresses the following salmon species: (1) Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon; (2) Snake River spring/summer-run Chinook salmon; (3) Puget Sound Chinook salmon; (4) Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon; (5) Upper Willamette Chinook salmon; (6) Snake River fall-run Chinook salmon; (7) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon; (8) Columbia River chum salmon; (9) Lower Columbia River coho salmon; (10) Snake River sockeye salmon; and (11) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon. We did not complete a 5-year review for the Oregon Coast coho salmon because, as part of a legal settlement, we previously agreed to conduct a new review of the status of this species. On June 20, 2011, we issued a final rule re-promulgating the threatened listing for Oregon Coast coho salmon (76 FR 35755).
This notice also addresses the following steelhead species: (1) Upper Columbia River steelhead DPS; (2) Middle Columbia River steelhead DPS; (3) Snake River Basin steelhead DPS; (4) Lower Columbia River steelhead DPS; (5) Upper Willamette steelhead DPS; and (6) Puget Sound steelhead DPS. Information about these species can be found at our Northwest Regional Web site:
We used a two-step process to complete the reviews of the listed salmonid species in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. First, we asked scientists from our Northwest Fisheries Science Center to collect and analyze new information about species viability. To evaluate viability, our scientists apply the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) concept. The VSP concept relies on evaluating four criteria—abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity—to assess species viability. They also considered new genetic and biogeographic information regarding species' boundaries. At the end of this process, the science team prepared a report detailing the results of their analyses. This report is available at our regional Web site.
Salmon management biologists from our Northwest Regional Office completed the second step in the review process. These biologists, organized into geographically-based teams, reviewed new information related to the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, which we consider when determining if a species should be listed as threatened or endangered or be de-listed. These are: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
After considering the best available information, we conclude that all 11 Pacific salmon species and 6 steelhead species in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho shall remain listed as currently classified.
We also conclude that, based on the best information available, no adjustments to species boundaries are necessary. We did conclude that the species membership of several hatchery programs will need to be revised, and we also identified several errors in our current species descriptions in the list of threatened and endangered species found at 50 CFR 17.11, 223.102, and 224.102. We will adjust the hatchery memberships and correct any listing inaccuracies through a subsequent rulemaking.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 21-1 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Amendment 21-1 would further revise the FMP to support the trawl rationalization program, a catch share program, implemented in January 2011 through Amendments 20 and 21. Amendment 21-1 would modify the FMP to clarify that Amendment 21 supersedes the limited entry/open access allocations for groundfish species allocated through Amendment 21. Amendment 21-1 would also revise the formula in the FMP to allocate Pacific halibut bycatch to the limited entry trawl fishery.
Comments on Amendment 21-1 must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on October 14, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-BB13 by any one of the following methods:
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Jamie Goen,
Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP or plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or amendment, immediately publish a notice that the FMP or amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve Amendment 21-1 to the FMP.
Amendment 21-1 would further revise the FMP to support the trawl rationalization program, a catch share program, implemented in January 2011 through Amendments 20 and 21. Amendment 21-1 would modify the FMP to: (1) Clarify that Amendment 21 supersedes the limited entry/open access allocations for groundfish species allocated through Amendment 21; and (2) revise the formula in the FMP to calculate the Pacific halibut bycatch mortality limit for the limited entry trawl fishery.
Amendment 21 to the FMP established allocations to the limited entry trawl fishery participants. As part of Amendment 21, allocations were established between the trawl and non-trawl sectors for certain groundfish species in preparation for the trawl rationalization program (called Amendment 21 species). In a letter to the Council dated August 9, 2010, NMFS disapproved part of Amendment 21 because the FMP language available to the public and to the Council during its decision making did not clearly state that Amendment 21 allocations supersede the previous limited entry/open access allocations for Amendment
Amendment 21-1 would modify the FMP to explicitly state that, for Amendment 21 species, allocations decided under Amendment 21 supersede allocations previously decided between limited entry and open access fisheries. Limited entry and open access allocations were initially decided under Amendment 6 to the FMP, which established the limited entry fishery.
Amendment 21-1 would also revise the formula in the FMP to calculate the amount of Pacific halibut bycatch available to the limited entry trawl fishery. The allocation of Pacific halibut to the trawl fishery was initially implemented through Amendment 21 to the FMP. Halibut allocations under Amendment 21 set a total catch limit of Pacific halibut in the limited entry trawl fishery for the trawl rationalization program in order to reduce trawl bycatch of halibut in future fisheries to provide more yield to directed Area 2A (Washington, Oregon, and California) halibut fisheries (i.e., primary use of halibut is to provide fish for the directed tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries). However, as the start date of the trawl rationalization program, January 2011, was getting closer, the Council and industry were concerned that the allocation established in Amendment 21 was too restrictive. In response, NMFS implemented interim measures for the 2011 groundfish fishery which interpreted the halibut allocation to be legal halibut of 130,000 lb net weight. This was in comparison to Amendment 21 language which stated legal and sub-legal halibut set at 15% of the International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC's) constant exploitation yield (CEY) for legal sized halibut (over 32 inches in length), not to exceed 130,000 lbs annually for the first four years and not to exceed 100,000 lbs annually beginning in the fifth year. This resulted in a two part calculation of the limit by converting from net weight to round weight and by converting legal sized halibut to legal and sublegal sized halibut. This calculation reflects the difference between the total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) established by the IPHC (net weight of legal fish) and NMFS management of groundfish and halibut (round weight of legal and sublegal fish).
Because the interim measures are temporary and will expire at the end of 2011, the Council has recommended a long term solution by making further revisions to Amendment 21 for the calculation of halibut bycatch mortality available to the trawl fishery. For 2012 and beyond, the Council recommended amending the FMP through Amendment 21-1 to: (1) Specify that the total net weight of legal sized halibut would then be expanded, converting to total round weight of legal and sublegal sized halibut, and (2) by making the percentage cap based on the best estimate of TCEY from the IPHC (i.e., preliminary IPHC estimate from their interim meeting of TCEY).
A proposed rule to implement the provisions of Amendment 21-1 has been submitted by the Council for Secretarial review and approval. NMFS expects to publish and request public review and comment on the proposed regulations to implement Amendment 21-1 in the near future. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. The decision on the amendment must occur within 30 days of the end of the comment period on the notice of availability for the amendment. All comments received by the end of the comment period for the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The South Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Jerome, Idaho. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review project applications for funding.
The meeting will be held August 31, 2011, 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 319 S 417 E, Jerome, Idaho 83338. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Sawtooth National Forest, 2647 Kimberly Road East, Twin Falls, Idaho. Please call ahead to (208) 737-3200 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Julie Thomas, Designated Federal Official, Sawtooth National Forest, 208-737-3200, and
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Requests for reasonable accomodation for access to the facility or proceedings may be made by contacting the person listed For Further Information.
The following business will be conducted: Review project applications for funding. The meeting agenda may be previewed at the following Web site:
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by October 14, 2011.
Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1522, Room 5168 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB as a revision to an existing collection. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Joyce McNeil, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-0812,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that the New Hampshire State Advisory Committee to the Commission will meet at 10:30 a.m. (EDT) on Monday, August 29, 2011, in Room 255 of the Student Center at the University of New Hampshire, 400 Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 03101. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to inform members on the operations of Federal advisory committees. The purpose of the planning meeting is to discuss future activities.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by September 29, 2011. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. They may be faxed to (202) 376-7548 or e-mailed to
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
Deaf or hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting(s) and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Eastern Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Management activities under the Department of the Interior are anticipated to include public education programs and public outreach regarding the coral reef ecosystem and related marine resources and species of the Monument and efforts to conserve them; traditional access by indigenous persons, for culturally significant subsistence, cultural and religious uses within the Monument; a program to assess and promote Monument-related scientific exploration and research, tourism, and recreational and economic activities and opportunities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); a process to consider
The Human Dimensions Research Program at NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center is initiating a survey to support development of a management plan for the Monument. Designation of the Monument was accompanied by social debate over the merits of designation, the economic benefits, increased federal management in the archipelago, the impacts to fishermen and fishing communities, and other effects. Now that the Monument has been established and management planning is beginning, there is a need for research to define CNMI and Guam residents' management preferences and perceptions of effects so this information is available to managers as they develop and begin to implement the plan. The survey contains questions on awareness, knowledge, and attitudes regarding the Monument, preferences for management and scientific research, and level of interest in becoming involved in Monument management and outreach activities. Additional questions include experiences with and attitudes toward existing uses of coastal and marine resources, to provide a context for interpreting responses regarding the Monument.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Regulations at 50 CFR 660.704 require that all vessels with permits issued under authority of the National Marine Fishery Service's (NMFS) Fishery Management Plan for United States (U.S.) West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries display the vessel's official number. The numbers must be of a specific size and format and located at specified locations. The display of the identifying number aids in fishery law enforcement.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Regulations at 50 CFR 648.8 and 697.8 require that owners of vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in registered length that have Federal permits to fish in the Northeast Region display the vessel's name and official number. The vessel's name and official number must be of a specific size at specified locations. The display of the identifying characters aids in fishery law enforcement.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting authority to expand the zone in Caguas and Ponce, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 9, 2011.
FTZ 163 was established by the Board on October 18, 1989 (Board Order 443, 54 FR 46097, 11/1/89), and expanded on April 18, 2000 (Board Order 1091, 65 FR 24676, 4/27/00), on June 9, 2005 (Board Order 1397, 70 FR 36117, 6/22/05), on July 26, 2006 (Board Order 1467, 71 FR 44996, 8/8/06), on November 9, 2006 (Board Order 1487, 71 FR 67098, 11/20/06), on June 26, 2009 (Board Order 1631, 74 FR 34306-34307, 7/15/09), and on July 8, 2010 (Board Orders 1692 and 1693, 75 FR 41801, 7/19/10).
The zone project currently consists of fifteen sites (917.70 acres total) in Puerto Rico:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the zone to include existing Sites 14 and 15 on a permanent basis and to include an additional site:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 14, 2011. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 31, 2011.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Alan Ray, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5403.
On June 30, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
In the
The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete this review by the current deadline. The Department has determined that it requires additional time to analyze the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties and to consider the unique facts and legal questions surrounding this changed circumstances review. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.302(b), the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results in this review by 30 days. Therefore, the final results will be due no later than September 19, 2011, as September 17, 2011, is a Saturday.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 771(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined that Toray Advanced Materials Korea, Inc. (Toray Advanced Materials) is the successor-in-interest to Toray Saehan, Inc. (Toray Saehan). As a result, Toray Advanced Materials will be accorded the same treatment previously accorded Toray Saehan with regard to the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from Korea, effective as of the date of publication of this notice in the
Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230;
The Department published an antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea on June 5, 1991.
On July 5, 1996, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea with respect to Cheil because Cheil had not sold the subject merchandise at LTFV for at least three consecutive periods of review.
The Department conducted another changed circumstances review in May 2000 in which it determined that Toray Saehan was the successor-in-interest to Saehan (which, as explained above, was the successor-in-interest to Cheil).
On December 21, 2010, Toray Advanced Materials filed a request for a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea. Toray Advanced Materials claimed it is the successor-in-interest to Toray Saehan in accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216, and provided documentation supporting its assertion.
On May 10, 2011, the Department published its initiation and preliminary results of changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from Korea.
Imports covered by the order are shipments of all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. The films excluded from this review are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches (0.254 micrometers) thick.
Polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3920.62.00. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and for customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive.
Based on the information provided by Toray Advanced Materials, the Department's analysis in the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of merchandise produced or exported by Toray Advanced Materials without regard to antidumping duties, as Toray Advanced Materials' predecessor, Toray Saehan, is revoked from the order.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) and (2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(e).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, and implementing regulations, notice is hereby given that NMFS has issued a letter of authorization (LOA) to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take marine mammals incidental to Navy training, maintenance, and research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) activities to be conducted within the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) Study Area for the period of August 12, 2011, through August 11, 2012.
This authorization is effective from August 12, 2011, through August 11, 2012.
The LOA and supporting documentation may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here.
Jolie Harrison or Brian D. Hopper, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals by the Navy incidental to MIRC training, maintenance, and RDT&E became effective on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45527, August 3, 2010), and remain in effect through August 3, 2015. The MIRC study area encompasses a 501,873 square nautical mile area (nm
On April 18, 2011, NMFS received a request from the Navy for a renewal of an LOA issued on August 12, 2010, for the taking of marine mammals incidental to training and research activities conducted within the MIRC Study Area under regulations issued on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45527). The Navy has complied with the measures required in 50 CFR 218.104 and 218.105, as well as the associated 2010 LOA, and submitted the reports and other documentation required in the final rule and the 2010 LOA.
As described in the Navy's exercise reports (both classified and unclassified), in 2010, the training activities conducted by the Navy were within the scope and amounts authorized by the 2010 LOA and the levels of take remain within the scope and amounts contemplated by the final rule. Between August 12, 2010 and February 15, 2011, the Navy conducted one Multi Strike Group Exercise. The exercise was conducted from September 16-21, 2010 and included one Sinking Exercise (SINKEX), one underwater demolition exercise, and one Air-to-Surface Missile Exercise (A-S MISSILEX).
In 2011-2012, the Navy expects to conduct the same type and amount of training contemplated in the final rule and identified in the 2010 LOA. Therefore, for the 2011 LOA, NMFS authorizes the same amount of take that was authorized in 2010.
The Navy submitted their classified and unclassified 2010 exercise reports within the required timeframes and the unclassified report is posted on NMFS' Web site:
The reports also list specific information gathered when marine mammals were detected by Navy watchstanders, such as how far an animal was from the vessel, whether sonar was in use, and whether it was powered or shut down. This information indicates that the Navy implemented the safety zone mitigation measures as required. During the Multi-Strike Group Exercise conducted in September, 2010, no instances of obvious behavioral disturbance were reported by the Navy watchstanders in their 10 marine mammal sightings
The Monitoring Plan for MIRC committed the Navy to conduct monitoring in 2010 and 2011 in anticipation of the MMPA regulations and LOAs being issued in March 2010. Due to unforeseen delays, the final rule and LOA were not issued until August 2010; however, the Navy had already prepared a draft Monitoring Plan for MIRC, and the visual surveys conducted January through April 2010 in collaboration with the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) were consistent with its objectives. No additional visual surveys occurred between August 12, 2010 and February 12, 2011, but a winter survey was conducted from February 17 to March 3, 2011. In addition, a summer survey and the deployment of passive acoustic monitoring devices is scheduled for September 2011 and the Mariana Islands Sea Turtle and Cetacean Survey (MISTCS) acoustic data analysis is currently underway. The Navy's monitoring accomplishments are discussed in their 2010 Monitoring Report, which is posted on NMFS' Web site (
From January 20 to February 6, 2010, visual observations for cetaceans occurred during an 18-day transit from Hawaii to Guam aboard the NOAA R/V OSCAR ELTON SETTE. These monitoring efforts and their findings, if available, will be discussed in greater detail below.
The R/V SETTE surveyed 1,285 nm of trackline over 16 days. The visual observer teams encountered 25 cetacean groups and obtained group size estimates for all groups. Two of the sightings were made by an independent observer. Eight of the 25 cetacean groups were identified to species. Time and weather limitations prevented the ship's approach of more of the sighted cetacean groups.
The R/V SETTE also conducted visual observations for cetaceans during the 17-day transit from Guam to Hawaii from April 19 to May 3, 2010. The visual observer teams encountered 21 cetacean groups and obtained group size estimates for all groups. One sighting was made by an independent observer. Sixteen of the 21 cetacean groups were identified to species. Time and weather limitations prevented the ship's approach of more of the sighted cetacean groups; however, on one occasion the small boat was launched for biopsy sampling and photography of a group of pilot whales.
From March 20 to April 11, 2010, visual observations for cetaceans occurred during transit periods of a 23-day oceanography survey around Guam and the southern portion of the Northern Mariana Islands. The observer team encountered nine cetacean groups and was able to identify three to species. Neither photos nor biopsy samples were collected during this cruise because cetacean observations were ancillary to the primary objective and time constraints did not allow the ship to stop for photographing groups or collecting samples.
Small vessel surveys for marine mammals were conducted from January to April 2010 by NMFS' PIFSC around the islands of Guam, Saipan and Tinian. During the surveys conducted around Guam from February 9-18, 2010, the observer team encountered 11 groups of cetaceans and identified 10 of the groups to species. A total of 2,769 digital images were taken for species identification and individual recognition. Surveys conducted around Saipan and Tinian from February 22-March 3, 2010, encountered seven cetacean groups and all were identified to species. A total of 971 digital images were taken for the purposes of species identification and individual recognition.
In conjunction with the vessel surveys from Hawaii to Guam, the SETTE's small boat was launched on two occasions for photography of sighted animals and biopsy sampling. A single biopsy sample was collected from a sei whale in the waters off of Wake Island. The sample was collected from the Safeboat using a dart fired from a crossbow. Upon collection, tissue samples are sectioned in half, with one half archived at PIFSC and the other sent to the genetics lab at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center for studies on the genetic population structure of cetaceans in the Pacific. During the transit from Guam to Hawaii, the SETTE's small boat was launched on one occasion for biopsy sampling and photography of a group of pilot whales. A total of 1,243 photos were collected. Most photos were taken from the flying bridge or bow of the SETTE. Over 200 photos were taken from the small boat during the pilot whale encounter. Most of these photos will be used for individual identification. Two biopsy sampling attempts were made, but no samples were collected.
During the small vessel surveys in the waters surrounding Guam, Saipan and Tinian, a total of 2,769 photos were taken and eight biopsy samples were collected. Photos will be used to study social behavior and movement patterns of identified individuals and to study external features such as morphology or coloration patterns, which may vary geographically. The genetic data from the biopsy samples will be used to study the population structure of the sampled cetacean group.
In addition to the visual observations conducted during the high seas surveys between Hawaii and Guam, a hydrophone array was towed behind the SETTE and sonobuoys were deployed to acoustically monitor for the presence of vocalizing cetaceans. The towed array was deployed throughout the cruise—collecting nearly continuous high-frequency clean acoustic data from the four hydrophones. Over 100 acoustic detections were collected, consisting primarily of sperm and minke whale vocalizations. In addition, 37 sonobuoys were deployed over 15 days. Cetacean vocalizations detected by the sonobuoys included humpback, sperm, minke, fin, and sei whale, as well as possible delphinid clicks and whistles. The SETTE also towed the hydrophone array and deployed sonobuoys during the 15-day transit from Guam to Hawaii. Over 150 hours of acoustic data were recorded by the four hydrophones. Sixty-seven vocalizations were detected, consisting primarily of sperm and minke whale; however, other acoustic detections included pilot whales, melon-headed whales, and false killer whales. In addition, six acoustic detections matched the visual sightings of the observation team. Similar to the first leg of the cruise, 37 sonobuoys were deployed over the course of 15 days. Cetacean vocalizations detected by the sonobuoys included delphinid whistles and sperm, minke, and fin whales.
The Navy purchased four passive acoustic monitoring devices that will be deployed around the Mariana Islands during the summer 2011 visual survey. These devices are capable of gathering data throughout the year. In addition, if funds permit, data from passive acoustic monitoring devices currently deployed off Saipan by other researchers will be analyzed cooperatively among the various agencies. Finally, data analysis is currently underway involving the four months of acoustic data gathered using towed arrays and sonobuoys during the MISTCS in 2007. This dataset represents a large compilation of acoustic detections, many of which also correlate to visual detections. Results from this analysis will be provided in the 2012 Annual Monitoring Report.
In conclusion, the Navy's implementation of the monitoring plan accomplished several goals, which contribute to a larger body of data intended to better characterize the abundance, distribution, life history, and behaviors of the species in the MIRC study area. In general, the monitoring conducted in 2010 satisfied the objectives of the monitoring plan and specifically contributed to the following: (1) A greater knowledge and understanding of the density and distribution of species within the MIRC study area; (2) the vocalizations of different species, which advances the development of automated classification software; and (3) establishment of a better baseline of species distribution and abundance that will assist the Navy and NMFS in determining, through adaptive management, whether a shift in monitoring is warranted.
NMFS concludes that the results of these monitoring efforts when taken together with the findings presented in the 2010 exercise report (see Annual Exercise Report section) do not warrant making changes to the current monitoring/mitigation requirements identified in the LOA. While the data collected by the Navy through monitoring and reporting builds upon the existing body of information in a valuable way, none of the new data contradict, or amend, the assumptions that underlie the findings in the 2010 rule in a manner that would suggest changing the current mitigation or monitoring.
In general, adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the Navy regarding practicability) if monitoring efforts should be modified if new information suggests that such modifications are appropriate. All of the 5-year rules and LOAs issued to the Navy include an adaptive management component, which includes an annual meeting between NMFS and the Navy. NMFS and the Navy conducted an adaptive management meeting in October, 2010, which representatives from the Marine Mammal Commission participated in, wherein we reviewed the Navy monitoring results through August 1, 2010, discussed other Navy research and development efforts, and discussed other new information that could potentially inform decisions regarding Navy mitigation and monitoring. None of the information contained in the monitoring report or discussed at the annual adaptive management meeting led NMFS to recommend any modifications to the existing mitigation or monitoring measures.
The 2010 LOA required that the Navy update the ICMP Plan to reflect development in three areas, specifically: (1) Identifying more specific monitoring sub-goals under the major goals that have been identified; (2) characterizing Navy Range Complexes and study areas within the context of the prioritization guidelines described in the ICMP Plan; and (3) continuing to develop data management, organization and access procedures. The Navy has updated the ICMP Plan as required. Because the ICMP is an evolving Program, we have posted the ICMP on the NMFS Web site:
Further, the Navy convened a monitoring meeting in October, 2010 to solicit input from NMFS and marine mammal and acoustic scientists regarding the comprehensive development and improvement of the more specific monitoring that should occur across the Navy's training areas. Subsequent to those discussions, the Navy assembled a scientific advisory group (of Navy and outside scientists) that will work on a proposed Navy training area-wide monitoring plan that better considers the biological, logistical, and resource-specific factors that are applicable in each area (and which are summarized in the updated ICMP) to maximize the effectiveness of Navy monitoring within the context of the information that is most needed. Subsequently, NMFS and MMC representatives will review this proposed Navy-wide monitoring plan, which will likely reflect monitoring differences in some Navy training areas from what has been required in the previous LOAs.
The regulations that established the framework for authorizing the taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy training activities required the Navy, with guidance and support from NMFS, to convene a Monitoring Workshop in 2011 (50 CFR 218.108(d)(2)). The Marine Mammal Monitoring Workshop, which included scientists, representatives from non-governmental organizations, and Marine Mammal Commission staff, took place in June 2011. Pursuant to the regulations, this workshop presented a consolidated overview of monitoring activities conducted in 2009 and 2010, as well as the outcomes of selected monitoring-related research. In 2010, the Navy convened a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG), comprised of experts in the fields of marine mammals and underwater acoustics, to review the Navy's current monitoring plans and make recommendations. The results of the SAG's review were also presented at the meeting. Participants engaged in open discussion of the lessons learned, and discussed how to improve the Navy's monitoring plan moving forward. If changes to monitoring approaches are identified at the workshop that can be implemented during the annual LOA renewal process and subsequent 5-year regulations, the Navy and NMFS will modify the Navy-wide monitoring plan and propose appropriate changes to the monitoring measures in specific LOAs for the different Range Complexes and training areas. For training areas with substantive monitoring modifications, NMFS will subsequently publish proposed LOAs, with the modifications, in the
The Navy complied with the requirements of the 2010 LOA. Based on our review of the record, NMFS has determined that the marine mammal take resulting from the 2010 military readiness training and research activities falls within the levels previously anticipated, analyzed, and authorized. Further, the level of taking authorized in 2011 for the Navy's MIRC activities is consistent with our previous findings made for the total taking allowed under the MIRC regulations. Finally, the record supports NMFS'
Accordingly, NMFS has issued a one-year LOA for Navy training exercises conducted in the MIRC Study Area from August 12, 2011, through August 11, 2012.
Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of a Computer Matching Program.
Subsection (e)(12) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires agencies to publish advance notice of any proposed or revised computer matching program by the matching agency for public comment; however, this notification will be completed by the DoD, the recipient agency. The DoD, as the recipient agency under the Privacy Act is hereby giving notice to the record subjects of a computer matching program between the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the source agency and Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) that their records are being matched by computer. The purpose of this agreement is for disclosure of Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program and Federal employment information to DMDC. This disclosure by OPM will provide the DoD with the FEHB eligibility and Federal employment information necessary to determine continuing eligibility for the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) and TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) programs.
This proposed action will become effective September 14, 2011 and matching may commence unless changes to the matching program are required due to public comments or by Congressional or Office of Management and Budget objections. Any public comment must be received before the effective date.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Samuel P. Jenkins, Director for Privacy, Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 920, Arlington, VA 22202-4512, or by phone at (703) 607-2943.
Pursuant to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a), the DMDC and OPM have concluded an agreement to conduct a computer matching program between the agencies. The purpose of this agreement is to verify an individual's continuing eligibility for the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) and TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) Programs.
The parties to this agreement have determined that a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining the information needed by the OPM to identify individual's ineligible to continue the TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) Programs. If this identification is not accomplished by computer matching, but is done manually, the cost would be prohibitive and it is possible that not all individuals would be identified.
A copy of the computer matching agreement between OPM and DMDC is available upon request to the public. Requests should be submitted to the address caption above or to the Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5415, Washington, DC 20415.
Set forth below is the notice of the establishment of a computer matching program required by paragraph 6.c. of the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines on computer matching published in the
The matching agreement, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, and an advance copy of this notice was submitted on August 9, 2011, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, `Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,' dated February 8, 1996 (61 FR 6435).
Notice of a Computer Matching Agreement Between the Office of Personnel Management and the Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense for Disclosure of Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program Eligibility in Determining Eligibility for Tricare Reserve Select (TRS) and TRICARE Retired Reserve Programs (TRR).
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (NDAA of 2007) established the enhanced TRICARE Reserve Select program as of Oct. 1, 2007. Selected Reserve members, who are eligible for FEHB under chapter 89 of title 5, U.S.C. are ineligible for TRICARE Reserve Select. This agreement implements the additional validation processes needed by DoD to insure Selected Reserve members eligible for FEHB are not enrolled in TRS. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Section 705 of Public Law 111-84, amended section 1076e of title 10 U.S.C. to establish the TRR health plan as of October 29, 2009.
OPM will use the system of records identified as OPM/GOVT-1 entitled “General Personnel Records,” at 76 FR 32997 (July 7, 2011).
DoD will use the SOR identified as DMDC 02 DoD, entitled “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS), (August 9, 2009, 74 FR 39657).” SSNs of DoD TRS and TRR Sponsors will be released to OPM pursuant to the routine use “22” set forth in the system notice, which provides that data may be released to OPM “for support of the DEERS enrollment process and to identify individuals not entitled to health care under TRS and TRR.”
OPM agrees to conduct two computer matches within a calendar year of the records of RC Service members provided by DMDC against the information found in OPM's EHRI for permanent employees in a current pay status. OPM will validate the identification of the RC records that matches against the Name, SSN and DOB provided by DMDC. OPM will provide a civilian agency indicator, the full FEHB Program Plan Code, a multiple record indicator, and a DOB match indicator. OPM will forward a response file to DMDC within 30 business days following the receipt of the initial finder file and for any subsequent files submitted.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by October 14, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704-0259, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Dustin Pitsch, 703-602-0289. The information collection requirements addressed in this notice are available electronically on the World Wide Web at:
Paper copies are available from Dustin Pitsch, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.
Paragraph (c) of the clause at DFARS 252.216-7000, Economic Price Adjustment—Basic Steel, Aluminum, Brass, Bronze, or Copper Mill Products, requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of the amount and effective date of each decrease in any established price. Paragraph (d) of the clause permits the contractor to submit a written request to the contracting officer for an increase in contract price.
Paragraph (f)(2) of the clause at DFARS 252.216-7001, Economic Price Adjustment—Nonstandard Steel Items, requires the contractor to furnish a statement identifying the correctness of the established prices and employee hourly earnings that are relevant to the computation of various indices. Paragraph (f)(3) of the clause requires the contractor to make available all records used in the computation of labor indices upon the request of the contracting officer.
Paragraph (b)(1) of the clause at DFARS 252.216-7003, Economic Price Adjustment—Wage Rates or Material Prices Controlled by a Foreign Government, permits the contractor to provide a written request for contract adjustment based on increases in wage rates or material prices that are controlled by a foreign government. Paragraph (c) of the clause requires the contractor to make available its books and records that support a requested change in contract price.
Office of Special Education Programs, Department of Education.
Notice.
Applications Available: August 15, 2011.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 14, 2011.
This priority is:
By the year 2030, English Learners
The term “limited English proficient,” when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—(A) Who is aged 3 through 21; (B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; (C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English; (ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and (II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and (D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—(i) The ability to meet the State's proficient level of achievement on State assessments described in section 1111(b)(3); (ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.
For purposes of this priority, the term
Identifying English Learners with disabilities poses unique challenges for educators. This is because of the difficulty in determining whether a student's lack of academic development in reading is due to a disability or due to English not being the student's first language. As a group, English Learners receive lower grades and have higher dropout rates compared to their non-English Learner peers (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; McCardle, MeleMcCarthy, Cutting, Leos, & D'Emilio, 2005; Nation's Report Card, 2007). Many English Learners also exhibit low vocabulary levels in English and, therefore, do not always benefit from reading comprehension and writing supports that have proven effective in improving reading achievement
Therefore, local educational agencies (LEAs) face two immediate challenges: improving the reading achievement of English Learners and then appropriately identifying those English Learners with, or at risk of having, a disability. There is emerging evidence supporting the use of multi-tiered instructional frameworks that include an emphasis on progress monitoring and culturally responsive principles to assist LEAs in addressing both challenges (Zehr, 2010).
A multi-tiered instructional framework integrates assessment and intervention to maximize student achievement. With a multi-tiered instructional framework, schools screen students to identify those at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student's responsiveness to instruction (Office of Special Education Programs, 2011). Multi-tiered instructional frameworks include a varying number of tiers (or levels) of intensity of instruction. Commonly used frameworks typically describe three tiers. The primary level includes high-quality core instruction. The secondary level includes evidence-based intervention(s) of moderate intensity. The tertiary level includes individualized intervention(s) of increased intensity for students who show minimal response to instruction at the secondary level. At all levels, attention should be on fidelity of implementation, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2011).
In 2006, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded model demonstration projects that identified, developed, and refined exemplars of progress monitoring. Under those previously funded model demonstration projects, OSEP required a multi-tiered instructional framework that included universal screening, progress monitoring, and instructional interventions at varying levels of intensity. In those model demonstration projects, progress monitoring within a multi-tiered framework showed evidence of effectiveness in increasing reading achievement of students with and without disabilities in classrooms where the models were implemented (Shapiro, Zigmond, Wallace, & Marston, 2011). Through this priority, we seek to support projects that will systematically implement and evaluate multi-tiered instructional frameworks, which include progress monitoring, incorporate culturally responsive principles into the learning environment, and provide reading instruction and reading interventions at varying levels of intensity to improve outcomes for English Learners with, or at risk of having, a disability.
The purpose of this priority is to support the establishment and operation of three model demonstration projects that will adapt, refine, and evaluate multi-tiered instructional frameworks as well as their components—progress monitoring, culturally responsive principles, reading instruction, and reading interventions—to determine if and to what extent the multi-tiered instructional frameworks: (1) Help to improve reading achievement and language development for English Learners with, or at risk of having, a
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this priority. Each model demonstration project (Project) funded under this absolute priority also must meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
(a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed Project. A logic model communicates how a Project will achieve its outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the Project to be conducted by the grantee;
The following Web sites provide more information on logic models:
(b) A plan to implement the activities described in the
(c) A plan, linked to the proposed Project's logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed Project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed Project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the Project and ensuring the quality of products and services. This formative evaluation must be distinct from any independent evaluation the Department may conduct of the Project;
(d) A description of the proposed model demonstration that must include a multi-tiered instructional framework that uses progress monitoring and incorporates culturally responsive principles into the learning environment to address the needs of English Learners with, or at risk of having, a disability. In addition, a description of all other components within the multi-tiered instructional framework, including reading instruction and reading interventions provided at varying intensity levels;
(e) A description of the research evidence that supports the effectiveness of the proposed multi-tiered instructional framework as a whole, as well as each of its components;
(f) A description of the methods to be used for recruiting and selecting at least five elementary schools with kindergarten through third grade (K-3) students, of which at least 40 percent and no fewer than 100 K-3 students have been identified as English Learners. To the extent the applicant identifies in its application schools willing to participate in the applicant's model demonstration, include a description of the demographics of the student population typically served by these schools, including information about the cultural and linguistic diversity of the students enrolled in the schools;
(g) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A 1
(2) A 3-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.
(3) Two 2-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
(a) During year one of the Project, collaborate with other Projects funded under this priority and prepare a literature review (a plan for this review will be discussed during the kick-off meeting described above) that synthesizes the research on policies and practices related to progress monitoring, culturally responsive principles, reading instruction, and reading interventions at varying intensity levels for English Learners with or at risk of having a disability. In conducting this literature review, the Projects must use standards that are consistent with those used by the What Works Clearinghouse and the definitions of strong and moderate evidence contained in the Notice of Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs published in the
(a)(1) Improve reading achievement and language development of English Learners with or at risk of having a disability; and
(2) Assist educators in determining if English Learners experiencing reading difficulties have or are at risk of having a disability.
(b) Implement, after consultation with the OSEP Project Officer and the MDCC, a random assignment design with longitudinal data collection in at least five elementary schools with grades K-3 (schools A, B, C, D, E, etc.), using the following approach:
(1) Three of the schools will be randomly assigned to a pilot group that participates in the Project's model demonstration (pilot group). School A in the pilot group will begin in year one of the project period and will implement the Project's model demonstration for at least three years. Schools B and C of the pilot group will begin implementing the Project's model demonstration in year two and will implement the model demonstration for two years.
(2) The remaining schools (schools D, E,
(3) Cooperate with any Department-sponsored independent evaluation of the model demonstration by providing the Department or its contractor with district administrative records on the participating schools and their students.
(c) In grades K-3 in the three elementary schools in the pilot group, implement model demonstrations that—
(1) Use multi-tiered instructional frameworks that—
(i) Use progress monitoring and incorporate culturally responsive principles in the learning environment; and
(ii) Include reading instruction and reading interventions at varying intensity levels;
(2) Assess the usefulness of progress monitoring, culturally responsive principles, reading interventions, and reading instruction at varying intensity levels in improving reading achievement and language development of all students who participate in the Project's model demonstration;
(3) Assess the usefulness of progress monitoring and culturally responsive principles in assisting educators in determining if English Learners experiencing reading difficulties have or are at risk of having a disability; and
(4) Describe the unique characteristics of the school and the cultural and linguistic diversity of the students that may affect reading achievement and language development of the students who participate in the Project's model demonstration.
(d) In accordance with the data coordination plan for the funded projects, which will be developed at the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (g)(1) of the
(1) Reading achievement and language development, including trajectories of reading achievement and language development, of all students who participate in the Project's model demonstration as well as the individual and contextual factors that affect reading achievement and language development.
(2) The usefulness of progress monitoring and culturally responsive principles to assist educators in determining if English Learners experiencing reading difficulties have or are at risk of having a disability.
(3) Quality of instruction, the language of instruction, the types of academic and language support available in grades K-3 at the schools in the pilot groups.
(4) Student engagement, instructional decisionmaking (including the use of data in making instructional decisions), and classroom social climate.
(5) Estimates of the cost of implementing the model, including costs of the various components of the model;
(e) Develop a framework for educators that would provide developmental benchmarks in reading and language development and contribute to appropriate identification of English Learners with or at risk of having a disability;
(f) Provide initial and ongoing professional development to general educators, special educators, related services providers, and administrators who are implementing the model demonstration at the schools in the pilot groups. Establish a process for providing feedback to these personnel on their implementation of the components (
(g) Implement a formative evaluation plan that includes a detailed description of the Project's model demonstration and its components, a description of the school and district characteristics required to successfully implement and continue use of the model demonstration after the end of the Project period, and the processes for collecting and analyzing—in accordance with its data coordination plan—common cross-project data related to the extent to which the Project's model demonstration—
(1) Contributes to improved English Learners' reading achievement and language development;
(2) Assists educators to determine if English Learners who are experiencing reading difficulties have a disability;
(3) Is implemented with fidelity with acceptable variations based on school contexts and the cultural and linguistic diversity of students that may affect their reading achievement and language development;
(4) Provides effective professional development to personnel implementing the model demonstration.
(h) Participate in discussions, facilitated by the MDCC, with the three projects about developing a data coordination plan, cross site data collection instruments, common evaluation questions, how to synthesize and analyze the data collection, monitor fidelity of implementation, ensure reliability of data, and foster dissemination of information.
(i) Identify methods for ongoing communication and collaboration among families, students, school staff, and project staff to support the implementation and evaluation of the model demonstration;
(j) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with Department-funded projects, including the National Center on Response to Intervention (
(k) Prior to developing any new product, submit a proposal for the product to the TACC database for approval from the OSEP Project Officer. The development of new products should be consistent with the product definition and guidelines posted on the TACC Web site (
(l) Maintain ongoing telephone and e-mail communication with the OSEP Project Officer and other Projects funded under this priority; and
The MDCC will provide support for monthly teleconferences with all projects to discuss cross-project activities.
(m) If the Project maintains a Web site, include relevant information about the model demonstration and documents in a form that meets government or industry recognized standards for accessibility.
20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2012 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.326M.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact the person listed under
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: August 15, 2011.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 14, 2011.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the
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 Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
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
7.
a.
We are participating as a partner in the Governmentwide
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Governmentwide
You may access the electronic grant application for the Model Demonstration Projects on the Use of Progress Monitoring for English Learners (including those with disabilities) to Improve Reading Achievement and Language Development and to Support Disability Identification competition at
Please note the following:
• Your participation in
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• 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
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• 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
• 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
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
b.
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,
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.
c.
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,
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between
(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.
In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The Standing Panel requirements under IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within the specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group.
4.
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.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's performance in annual reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
5.
If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2011.
This priority is:
29 U.S.C. 773(b).
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2012 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program as follows: CFDA number 84.235M.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit; or if you apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (
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 Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
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 at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the National Technical Assistance Projects to Improve Employment Outcomes for Individuals with Disabilities, CFDA number 84.235M, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the National Technical Assistance Projects to Improve Employment Outcomes for Individuals with Disabilities at
Please note the following:
• 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,
• 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 program 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 qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• 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.
• 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 application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Thomas Finch, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5147, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7591.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. 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 84.235M), 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.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand,
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.
(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 program 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.
One goal of this project is to provide technical assistance (TA) in areas of national need identified by the grantee in consultation with RSA and RSA's regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers. A second goal is to increase the transfer, utilization, and dissemination of information on promising practices and knowledge from research on topics of national significance in the field of rehabilitation that can be used in providing TA to improve the performance of State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies.
As required by the absolute priority in paragraph (f), the grantee must conduct an evaluation of the national TA provided by the project. To measure the success of the grantee in meeting the goals of the project, the grantee is also required to submit annual performance reports detailing its activities and providing quantitative and qualitative evidence that its performance met or exceeded the goals and objectives set forth in its application. The report must include, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) The number of technical assistance activities conducted, the identified needs to which these activities responded, and the target audience for each activity;
(2) The number and types of TA products organized and archived;
(3) The number of visits to the grantee's Web site on a monthly and annual basis; and
(4) A quantitative analysis of any customer satisfaction survey findings including information derived from questions about product quality, relevance, and utility.
In addition, the Department will use the following measures to assess the extent to which:
(1) The two-year plan is developed on time and appropriately reflects the need for national TA on high priority issues;
(2) The plan includes cost-effective and efficient options for delivering TA at the national level;
(3) The need for TA was addressed by the technical assistance provided;
(4) The TA products are readily available and in a useful format; and
(5) The TA products and materials are used by State VR agencies, TACE centers, and other RSA grantees.
5.
For Further Information Contact: Thomas Finch, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5147, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7343 or by e-mail:
If you use a TDD call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice of final priority.
The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority under the Special Demonstration Programs authorized under section 303(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and later years. We take this action to focus technical assistance (TA) on areas of national need identified by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) through analyses of information obtained during monitoring and oversight of its vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs. We intend the priority to increase the transfer, utilization, and dissemination of information on promising practices and knowledge from research on topics in the field of rehabilitation that have national significance and to improve the performance of State VR agencies.
Thomas Finch, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5147, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the
There are differences between the notice of proposed priority and this notice of final priority as discussed in the
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.
However, as a result of our further review of the proposed priority since publication of the notice of proposed priority, we have made minor changes for purposes of clarification.
As stated in the June 20, 2011, notice of proposed priority, the activities conducted under this priority would supplement the TA provided by the TACE centers by supporting cost-effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering TA at the national level. For example, prior to developing its annual work plan for the provision of TA and continuing education (CE), each regional TACE center conducts an annual needs assessment of State VR agencies and agency partners in its region to identify TA topics. The grantee under this priority would work with the TACE centers to identify topics that would be most appropriately addressed nationally.
The role of the NCRTM is to identify and gather rehabilitation information and training materials for use in conducting pre-service and in-service education and training for rehabilitation personnel and to disseminate rehabilitation information and state-of-the-art training materials and methods. The grantee funded under this priority would be responsible for organizing and making readily available TA materials used and developed under this priority and would not duplicate the work of the NCRTM. We do believe, however, that the expertise of the NCRTM would be of value in assisting the grantee to carry out the activities under this priority.
Finally, while we would expect the successful applicant selected to carry out this priority to have sufficient expertise to appropriately tailor the TA and materials to the unique needs of its audience, we agree that clarifying language would be beneficial.
This commenter also expressed the value of having a mechanism for housing and making available TA products. Finally, the commenter emphasized the need to ensure that sufficient funds are available under this grant to support accommodations that may be necessary for VR professionals to fully participate and to support stipends for professionals who otherwise would not be able to attend presentations and national conferences because of State travel and funding restrictions.
The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services establishes a priority to support a grant under the Special Demonstration Programs to fund a project to provide national technical assistance (TA) to State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and other entities that carry out VR-related programs administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to increase the transfer, utilization, and dissemination of current promising practices and knowledge in VR and the employment of individuals with disabilities. The Department intends to award this grant as a cooperative agreement to ensure that there is substantial involvement, communication, and collaboration between RSA and the grantee in carrying out the activities of the grant. (34 CFR 75.200(b)(4)).
In coordination with the Department, the grantee must—
(a) Consult with RSA staff and staff from the Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers to identify issues that may affect State VR agency service delivery, as well as TA needs that are most appropriately addressed on a national basis;
(b) Develop a proposed two-year plan for delivering national TA to VR professionals through conferences, webinars, or other mechanisms, based on the activities conducted under paragraph (a) of this priority. The proposed two-year plan must be developed and approved by RSA within the first three months of the project period and include a schedule for delivering high priority TA activities, recommended methods of delivery, and the estimated costs of providing such TA;
(c) Organize and provide national TA in accordance with the two-year plan approved by RSA, including overseeing all activities related to preparing for and conducting national TA. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: Determining the target audience for the TA; organizing conferences, webinars, and other national TA; identifying presenters; providing TA and preparing materials in formats that best meet the needs of the target audience; arranging for reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities; making logistical arrangements for the national TA; providing travel reimbursement and stipends, where appropriate, to State VR personnel; and providing for continuing education credits;
(d) Organize and archive all TA products and materials developed or used in providing TA conducted under this priority for use by RSA, the TACE centers, and other TA providers, as needed;
(e) Develop and maintain a Web site to make available the products and materials that are developed and/or used in providing TA conducted under this priority so that they can be easily accessed and used by RSA, the TACE centers, and other RSA grantees. The Web site must be capable of supporting other features including, but not limited to, conference and webinar registration, a calendar of events, and links to other related Web sites and resources;
(f) Conduct an evaluation of the national TA provided under this priority, including, at a minimum, the following: The number of TA activities conducted, the identified needs to which these activities responded, and
(g) Collaborate with other RSA-funded TA providers, including, but not limited to, the TACE centers, the National Clearinghouse of Rehabilitation Training Materials, the American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center, and the Independent Living Training and Technical Assistance Center, in the provision and support of TA activities.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This notice does
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the priority justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
TA targeted to the specific needs of grantees helps them to improve their performance and to achieve their objectives. Specifically, the provision of cost effective TA to State VR agencies in areas of national need should result in higher quality employment outcomes for the individuals with disabilities whom these agencies serve.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
Glacial Energy of Texas, Inc. (Glacial) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 14, 2011.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) 202-586-5260.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On July 14, 2011, DOE received an application from Glacial for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico for five years as a power marketer using existing international transmission facilities. Glacial does not own any electric transmission facilities nor does it hold a franchised service area.
The electric energy that Glacial proposes to export to Mexico would be
Comments on the Glacial application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with Docket No. EA-382. An additional copy is to be filed directly with Michael B. Giery, Senior Corporate Counsel, 5326 Yacht Haven Grande #36, St. Thomas, VI 00802. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the DOE Loan Guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland for Construction and Startup of the Topaz Solar Farm, San Luis Obispo County, California (DOE/EIS-0458) (Final EIS). The Final EIS, prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the DOE's proposed action of issuing a Federal loan guarantee to support construction and start-up of the Topaz Solar Farm Project located in San Luis Obispo County, California (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is a nominal 550-megawatt solar power generating facility based on photovoltaic (PV) technology on approximately 3,500 acres of private land in San Luis Obispo County, California. DOE considered all comments received in preparing the EIS and incorporated both the comments and DOE's responses in the Final EIS.
DOE will publish a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of EPA's Notice of Availability in the
To obtain additional information about this EIS, or to receive a copy of the Final EIS, contact Angela Colamaria by
Title XVII of Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct) established a Federal loan guarantee program for eligible energy projects, and was amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to create Section 1705 of Title XVII (42 U.S.C. 16516), authorizing a new program for rapid deployment of renewable energy projects and related manufacturing facilities, electric power transmission projects, and leading edge biofuels projects. The Section 1705 Program is designed to address the current economic conditions of the nation, in part, through financing such projects.
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, as Lender-Applicant, with Topaz Solar Farms, LLC (Topaz) as the borrower, applied to DOE for a federal loan guarantee under the Solicitation entitled, “Federal Loan Guarantees for Commercial Technology Renewable Energy Generation Projects under the Financial Institution Partnership Program” (Solicitation No. DE-FOA-0000166), issued on October 7, 2009.
The purpose and need for action by DOE is to comply with its mandate under EPAct 2005 by selecting eligible projects that meet the goals of the Section 1705 Program, as summarized above. The EIS informs DOE's decision on whether to issue a loan guarantee to support the Proposed Project. DOE's proposed action is to issue a loan guarantee to support construction and startup of the Topaz Solar Farm (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would be located in an unincorporated portion of eastern San Luis Obispo County, California, adjacent to Highway 58 and east of Bitterwater Road. Topaz has options to purchase approximately 10,000 acres of land in the project area. The Proposed Project would be developed on approximately 3,500 acres of private land.
The Proposed Project would consist of: a solar field of approximately nine million ground-mounted PV modules, within up to 460 PV arrays, that collect solar radiation to produce electricity; an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) and delivers it to a new Project substation which collects and converts the generated power from 34.5 kV to 230 kV for delivery via a new Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station to PG&E's existing Morro Bay-Midway 230-kV transmission line which runs in an east-to-west direction through the site and portions of Kern County; and the aforementioned PG&E switching station that interconnects the Proposed Project to PG&E's existing transmission line. After construction, PG&E would own and operate the switching station. As part of the Proposed Project, Topaz would construct and operate a Monitoring and Maintenance Facility, and may also construct a Solar Energy
Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. Topaz has interconnection agreements in place for the first 400 MW of Project capacity. The California Independent System Operator has determined that network upgrades would be required to accommodate the Proposed Project's remaining 150 MW, as well as other generation projects in the region. Network upgrades could include the reconductoring of 35 miles of the 230-kV transmission lines between the new PG&E switching station and the Midway Substation. Such upgrades would extend the height of every other existing tower by 20 feet, but would not introduce a new structure.
In determining the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS for the Proposed Project, DOE identified the reasonable alternatives that would satisfy the underlying purpose and need for agency action. Rather than being directly responsible for the siting, construction, and operation of respective projects selected in response to solicitations under EPAct 2005, DOE's actions are limited to guaranteeing the debt obligation for the project. Therefore, DOE's overall decision will be to either provide a loan guarantee for the Proposed Project or to decline to provide a loan guarantee (
Within the Proposed Project site, Topaz identified two Study Areas (Study Area A and Study Area B) that would be suitable for the Proposed Project and that were evaluated in the Draft EIS (Project-Specific Alternative A and Project-Specific Alternative B). In the Final EIS, DOE revised the analysis to include a County-approved project layout located wholly within Project Specific Alternative A (Study Area A) and to identify a Preferred Alternative. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations require a lead agency to identify a Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS unless another law prohibits the expression of such a preference (40 CFR 1502.14[e]). DOE's Preferred Alternative is to issue a loan guarantee for Alternative A with County-Approved Project Layout (termed Alternative 3B.1 in the San Luis Obispo County Final EIR and approved by the County of San Luis Obispo Planning through its conditional use permit process). Alternative A with County-Approved Project Layout involves a project layout that is contained within Study Area A. Alternative A with County-Approved Project Layout would involve a solar facility with a footprint of 3,500 acres, approximately 600 acres less than the development site analyzed under Alternative A in the Draft EIS. While the County approved a PV solar facility within the Alternative A footprint, Alternative B is retained for continuity between the Draft and Final EIS.
Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide the loan guarantee to Topaz. Although Topaz may still pursue the Project without the loan guarantee, as defined above, for purposes of the EIS analysis, it is assumed that the No Action Alternative would result in no Project or in a no build scenario.
In the October 22, 2010 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (75 FR 65306), DOE provided notice of a proposed DOE action in a floodplain pursuant to DOE Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022). Overhead electrical lines would need to cross 100-year floodplains (unnamed drainages within the Carrizo Plain, northwest of Soda Lake). Since some of the floodplains on the project site are greater than 200 feet wide and posts are needed every 200 feet to support overhead lines, the installation of posts within the floodplain is anticipated. DOE has prepared a floodplain assessment as required by DOE regulations. The floodplain assessment is incorporated into the Draft EIS and Final EIS, and the Floodplain Statement of Findings will be included in the Record of Decision for the Proposed Project.
The DOE prepared this Final EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the CEQ NEPA regulations, and the DOE NEPA implementing procedures. The Final EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the Proposed Action, including the project-specific alternatives, the Preferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. Because the Proposed Project may affect listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), DOE consulted with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA. Consultation with USFWS resulted in a Biological Opinion for the Proposed Project that is included in the Final EIS.
The Proposed Project site would affect waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); therefore the Proposed Project will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit. As a result, USACE has participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this Final EIS. USACE will issue a separate decision document on the CWA Section 404 Permit for the Proposed Project that will incorporate the environmental analyses from this EIS.
The DOE has used the NEPA public comment process to satisfy the public involvement requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). DOE invited Federally-recognized American Indian Tribes that have historic interests in the area to also participate in government-to-government consultation regarding the Proposed Project. In addition to these Federally-recognized tribes, the California Native American Heritage Commission provided DOE with a Native American contacts list in the project area. DOE contacted parties on the list to solicit concerns or comments on the Proposed Project. The outcome of Section 106 consultation with Federally-recognized American Indian Tribes and other consulting parties is included in the Final EIS.
Copies of the Draft EIS were distributed to Members of Congress; Native American Tribal governments, Federal, State, and local officials; and agencies, organizations and individuals who may be interested or affected by the Proposed Project. The public comment period was open from March 25, 2011 through May 9, 2011, and a public hearing was held in Santa Margarita, CA, on April 13, 2011. DOE considered all comments received during the comment period during the preparation of this Final EIS, and the Final EIS contains revisions and new information based in part on these comments. The comments and DOE's responses to these comments are included in the Final EIS.
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 September 14, 2011.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0911 to (1) EPA online using
Pamela Myrick, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 13, 2011 (76 FR 20659), EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR. EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0911, which is available for online viewing at
EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR 745, Subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
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 numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 9, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 8, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
1.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2011-20130) published on pages 48862 and 48863 of the issue for Tuesday, August 9, 2011.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York heading, the entry for ES Bancshares, Newburgh, New York, is revised to read as follows:
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by August 24, 2011.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, HHS.
Correction notice.
This document corrects a technical error that appeared in the notice published in the August 10, 2011
This correction is effective August 15, 2011.
Stacy Elmer, 202-205-4246.
In FR Doc. 2011-20296, there was a technical error that we are identifying and correcting in the “Correction of Errors” section below. The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the document published August 10, 2011. Accordingly, the corrections are effective August 15, 2011.
In the August 10, 2011 notice (76 FR 49485/FR Doc. 2011-20296) an award approving official is named, additional eligibility requirements have been added to the section entitled “Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition”. A new section, entitled “Payment of Prize”, has also been added and the date period during which applications will be accepted has been changed to August 22, 2011 through November 4, 2011.
In FR Doc. 2011-20296 of August 10, 2011 (76 FR 49485) make the following corrections:
1. On page 49485, in column 2, between the “
2. On page 49486, in column 1, between lines 49 and 50, insert the following:
(4) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submission during assigned duty hours.
(5) Shall not be an employee of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.
(6) Federal grantee may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award and specifically requested to do so due to competition design.
(7) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.
(8) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section.
3. On page 49486, in column 2, line 44, change to “Dates: Submission period for initial entries begins 12:01 am, EDT, August 22nd, 2011, and ends 11:59 pm, EDT, November 4th, 2011”.
4. On page 49486, in column 2, between lines 64 and 65, insert the following:
Prizes awarded under this competition will be paid by electronic funds transfer and may be subject to Federal income taxes. HHS will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,250
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
Four additional questions have been added that are specific to a special initiative ANA is funding this year. These questions are only to be filled out by the Asset for Independence Grantees.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,600.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447,
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,672.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance document entitled “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Review.” The recommendations in this guidance are intended to provide greater clarity on FDA's decisionmaking process with regard to benefit-risk determinations in the premarket review of medical devices. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 14, 2011.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Review” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
There are many factors that go into weighing the probable benefit of a device versus its probable risk. This draft guidance sets out the factors FDA considers when making this determination and explains them in detail. This draft guidance also gives examples of how the factors interrelate and how they may affect FDA's decisions. By clarifying FDA's decisionmaking process in this way, we hope to improve the predictability, consistency, and transparency of the review process for applicable devices.
This draft guidance also includes for public comment a draft worksheet that reviewers may use in making benefit-risk determinations. The worksheet is attached as appendix A to the guidance. This level of documentation is very helpful to maintaining the consistency of review across the different review divisions and better assuring that an appropriate decision is reached.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations in medical device premarket review. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
FDA tentatively concludes that this draft guidance contains no new collections of information. This draft guidance refers to currently approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices.” This document is intended to provide guidance to those involved in designing clinical studies intended to support premarket submissions for medical devices and for FDA staff who review those submissions. This guidance document describes different study design principles relevant to the development of medical device clinical studies that can be used to fulfill premarket clinical data requirements. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 14, 2011.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance document entitled “Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices” to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 301-847-8149. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Greg Campbell,Center for Devices and Radiological Health,Food and Drug Administration,10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 2110,Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,301-796-5750.
This draft guidance document is intended to provide guidance to those involved in designing clinical studies intended to support premarket submissions for medical devices and for FDA staff who review those submissions. Although the Agency has articulated policies related to design of studies intended to support specific device types, and a general policy of tailoring the evidentiary burden to the regulatory requirement, the Agency has not attempted to describe the different clinical study designs that may be appropriate to support a device premarket submission or to define how a sponsor should decide which pivotal clinical study design should be used to support a submission for a particular device. The draft guidance document describes different study design principles relevant to the development of medical device clinical studies that can be used to fulfill premarket clinical data requirements. The draft guidance is not intended to provide a comprehensive tutorial on the best clinical and statistical practices for investigational medical device studies.
A medical device pivotal study is a definitive study in which evidence is gathered to support the safety and effectiveness evaluation of the medical device for its intended use. Evidence from one or more pivotal clinical studies generally serves as the primary basis for the determination of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the medical device of a premarket approval application (PMA) and FDA's overall risk-benefit assessment. In some cases, a PMA may include multiple studies designed to answer different scientific questions.
The draft guidance describes principles that should be followed for the design of premarket clinical studies that are pivotal in establishing the safety and effectiveness of a medical device. Practical issues and pitfalls in pivotal clinical study design are discussed, along with their effects on the conclusions that can be drawn from the studies concerning safety and effectiveness.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on design considerations for pivotal clinical investigations for medical devices. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the
Shanika Craig, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6639,
In the
FDA will work with the manufacturers of surgical mesh products who wish to make presentations to ensure that adequate time, separate from the 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. time slots from the general open public hearing, is provided. Manufacturers interested in making formal presentations to the committee should notify the contact person on or
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Human Genome Research Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Human Genome Research Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
30-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670-NEW
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). NPPD is soliciting comments concerning New Information Collection Request, Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Stakeholder Survey. DHS previously published this ICR in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Comments must be identified by DHS-2011-0018 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
OMB is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Emily Hickey, DHS/NPPD/IP,
The PCII Program was created by Congress under the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 (CII Act), Sections 211-215, Title II, Subtitle B of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, to encourage voluntary information sharing by owners and operators of critical infrastructure and protected systems. The PCII Program is implemented by 6 CFR Part 29, Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information; Final Rule (the Regulation), which was issued in 2006. PCII refers to validated and marked critical infrastructure information not customarily in the public domain and related to the security of critical infrastructure or protected systems, which is voluntarily submitted to DHS for homeland security purposes. The PCII Program offers protection from public disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), state and local sunshine laws, and civil litigation. The PCII Program is administered by DHS/NPPD/IP's Infrastructure Information Collection Division.
The PCII Program helps government analysts, emergency responders, and other homeland security professionals access data about facilities and systems on which the country depends. The PCII Program is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Regulation's uniform procedures for the handling, use, dissemination, and safeguarding of PCII. In this capacity, the PCII Program oversees a community of stakeholders, including submitters of CII, authorized users of PCII and accredited Federal, state, and local entities with homeland security duties. This survey is designed to gather information from PCII Officers that can be used to improve these relationships and to maximize the value that the PCII Program is offering to its Federal, state, and local government users. Both the CII Act and its implementing regulations stress the voluntary nature of the PCII Program, so collecting information that will assist in making the PCII Program attractive to its stakeholders will allow the PCII Program to better accomplish the statute's goals.
The data collected in this survey will be used by the PCII Program to improve relationships with stakeholders and maximize the value of the program. The survey data collected is for internal PCII Program and DHS/NPPD/IP use only. The PCII Program will use the results from the stakeholder to determine levels of satisfaction with the PCII Program and identify areas that require additional communication, identify areas for improvement with the PCII Management System (PCIIMS), and help determine the future direction of the Program.
The survey is administered using a web-based survey tool, Vovici Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM). Automating the PCII Stakeholder Survey reduces the respondent burden of responding to a paper survey or a telephone interview. The staff burden of manually administering a survey and accurately collecting data is also reduced. Automation also captures participants' typed comments, eliminating time-consuming transcription and manual inaccuracies.
The PCII Stakeholder Survey does not collect personally identifiable information. The survey instrument states that the survey is voluntary and the information will be kept private or anonymous to the extent allowable by law.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., as an approved commercial gauger and accredited laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt, LP, Road 127 KM 13.4 Bo. Magas Arriba, P.R., has been approved to gauge and test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP, Inc., Guayanilla, P.R., as commercial gauger and accredited laboratory became effective on March 11, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2013.
Donald Cousins, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., as an approved commercial gauger and accredited laboratory.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Saybolt, LP., 414 Weschester, Corpus Christi, TX 78469, has been approved to gauge and test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
The accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., Inc., Corpus Christi, TX, as commercial gauger and accredited laboratory became effective on April 6, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2014.
Donald Cousins, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information: 1651-0055.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Harbor Maintenance Fee (CBP Forms 349 and 350). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before September 14, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
CBP Form 349,
CBP uses the information collected on CBP Forms 349 and 350 to verify that the fee collected is timely and accurately submitted. These forms are authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4461,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for comments; announcement of public meetings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) for public review and comment. In this document, we describe goals and objectives, management direction, and alternatives to manage the Refuge for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP. Also available for review in the document are draft compatibility determinations, a draft wilderness review, and a draft wild and scenic river review prepared in association with the CCP, as well as supporting documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by November 14, 2011. We will hold public meetings in communities within and near the Refuge, and also in the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks, in Alaska. We will announce these upcoming public meetings in local news media.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. You may request a 20-page summary of the CCP; a 1,200-page hard copy of the full CCP; or a CD-ROM of the summary and full document.
Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, at the address listed above, by phone at (907) 456-0501, or by e-mail at
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice of intent in the
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge includes nearly 19.3 million acres, three wild rivers, and one of the largest areas of designated Wilderness in the United States. The rugged Brooks Range, with peaks and glaciers to 9,000 feet, extends east to west in a band 75 miles wide, rising abruptly from a tundra-covered plain. This treeless plain is cut by numerous braided rivers and streams. South of the continental divide, rivers wind serpentine courses through broad spruce-covered valleys dotted with lakes and sloughs. Nearly 180 species of birds, 45 species of mammals, and 36 species of fish have been documented on Arctic Refuge. Vast mountains, diverse wildlife, and a wealth of habitats give this unspoiled wildlife refuge high cultural-heritage, scenic, scientific, and wilderness values.
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 2371; ANILCA) 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 20 years in accordance with ANILCA.
We started the CCP for Arctic Refuge in April 2010. At that time and throughout the planning process, we requested public comments and considered and incorporated them in numerous ways. In April 2010, we mailed a planning newsletter to more than 2,000 individuals, agencies, and organizations describing the planning process for the CCP revision and telling the public how they could be informed or involved. It informed the public about the Refuge vision and draft goals identified by the planning team and Refuge staff. The newsletter contained a comment form that provided an opportunity for people to identify issues they thought should be addressed in the CCP or to provide suggestions on how best to accomplish Arctic Refuge purposes. The newsletter and comment form were also made available over the Internet.
To gather additional input from the public, members of the planning team and Refuge staff held eight public open house meetings—five in communities adjacent to or within the boundaries of the Arctic Refuge; one in Washington, DC; one in Anchorage, Alaska; and one in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Individuals and organizations provided 94,061 comments during the scoping process. The responses came in e-mails, Web forms, postcards, faxes, letters, and public hearing transcripts. Approximately 300 people spoke at meetings in 8 communities. The responses were reviewed, coded, and
(1) General comments expressing support for, or opposition to, wilderness designation and development within the Refuge;
(2) Analysis—These comments spoke to the scope and content of the draft CCP/EIS, with the major theme being the need to update studies and to employ effective monitoring and inventories. A minor theme was the adequacy of the studies—the data concerns related to climate change, wildlife, invasive plants, recreation, oil and gas, water, and air;
(3) Process—Commenters provided input on process considerations for CCP preparation, including comments on decisionmaking philosophy, outreach, public involvement process, public meetings, and the influence of politics and special interests in the process;
(4) Activities and Uses—The comments received covered four major areas of activities and uses:
• Commercial activities, either support or opposition—
• Government Activities—
• Private Activities; and
• Native/Tribal activities on the Refuge, including support or opposition to recreational activities, large groups and growing crowds, with comments focused on potential impacts of Refuge regulations and policies to Native Alaskans;
(5) Land and Resource Management—The focus of these comments included discussions about Refuge purposes and mandates (asking the Service to avoid changing or manipulating the natural environment in the Refuge); support for, and opposition to, further Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River designations; opposition to naming of features; and both ensuring compliance with Refuge treaties and agreements and concern from Alaska Natives that treaties have been used to manipulate their lifestyles;
(6) Legal Consistency—This category included comments about the legal consistency of various laws, treaties, and policies that affect the Refuge—
We have considered and evaluated these issues and public concerns, and we have used them to develop various aspects of the draft CCP/EIS, such as management objectives, management guidelines, and alternatives.
We developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized in the table below. A full description of each alternative is in the draft EIS.
In addition to any methods in
We will involve the public through open houses, hearings, meetings, and written comments. We will mail documents to our national and local Refuge mailing lists. Public open house meetings will be held in the communities of Arctic Village, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, and Venetie, Alaska, and public hearings in will be held in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska. Dates, times, and locations of each meeting or open house will be announced in advance in local media.
We particularly seek comments on the following issues:
• Issue 1—Should one or more areas of the Arctic Refuge be recommended for Wilderness designation?
• Issue 2—Should additional Wild and Scenic Rivers be recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System?
• Issue 3—How will the Refuge manage Kongakut River visitor use to protect resources and visitor experience?
We consider comments substantive if they:
• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document;
• Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the environmental assessment;
• Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the draft
CCP and the EIS; and/or
• Provide new or additional information relevant to the assessment.
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and decision document.
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of surveys.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has officially accepted the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9 a.m., on the date specified.
Bureau of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709-1657.
The BLM will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, on September 14, 2011. This survey was executed at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet certain administrative and management purposes.
The lands surveyed are:
The plat constituting the entire survey record of the survey of certain islands in the Snake River, Tps 1 and 2 N., R. 3 West, T. 2 N., R. 4 W., T. 3 N., R. 4 W., T. 3 N., R. 5 W., and T. 4 N., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, was accepted July 29, 2011.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho, 30 days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Hollister Field Office, proposes to sell a parcel of public land consisting of approximately 15.61 acres in San Benito County, California. The public land would be sold to Windfield Ranch, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Written comments regarding the proposed sale must be received by the BLM on or before September 29, 2011.
Written comments concerning the proposed sale should be sent to the Field Manager, BLM Hollister Field Office, 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, California 95023.
Christine Sloand, Realty Specialist, BLM Hollister Field Office, 20 Hamilton Court, Hollister, California 95023, phone (831) 630-5022 or visit the Web site at
The public land described below is proposed for direct sale to Windfield Ranch, LLC, the adjoining landowner, in accordance with Sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1713 and 1719):
The area described contains approximately 15.61 acres, more or less, in San Benito County.
The public land was first identified as suitable for disposal in the 1984 BLM Hollister Resource Management Plan (RMP) and remains available for sale under the 2007 Hollister RMP revision. The land is not needed for any other Federal purpose and its disposal would be in the public interest. The purpose of the sale is to dispose of public land which is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands. The land proposed for sale is difficult and uneconomic for the BLM to manage because it is a small, isolated parcel which lacks legal access. The BLM is proposing a direct sale to Windfield Ranch, LLC, the owner of the adjoining land on three sides of the public land proposed for sale. A competitive sale is not considered appropriate because the public land lacks legal access and has no practical utility except to be incorporated into the adjacent ranch land. The only other adjoining landowner has informed the BLM that they have no interest in purchasing the land and do not object to the sale of the land to Windfield Ranch, LLC. The BLM has completed a mineral potential report which concluded there are no known mineral values in the land proposed for sale. The BLM proposes that conveyance of the Federal mineral interests would occur simultaneously with the sale of the land.
On August 15, 2011, the above described land will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except for the sale provisions of the FLPMA. Until completion of the sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the identified public land, except applications for the amendment of previously filed right-of-way applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants in accordance with 43 CFR 2802.15 and 2886.15. The temporary segregation will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the
1. A reservation of a right-of-way to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. A condition that the conveyance be subject to all valid existing rights of record;
3. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented land; and
4. Additional terms and conditions that the authorized officer deems appropriate.
Public comments regarding the proposed sale may be submitted in writing to the attention of the BLM Hollister Field Manager (see
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised 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 from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, the applicable Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the project site and the surrounding areas, located in the California Desert District. The Secretary of the Interior approved the ROD on August 9, 2011, which constitutes the final decision of the Department.
Copies of the ROD/Approved Amendment to the CDCA Plan are available upon request from the Field Manager, Palm Springs—South Coast Field Office, Bureau of Land
Allison Shaffer, BLM Project Manager; telephone (760) 833-7100; through mail at the address above; or e-mail
Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar, Inc., filed right-of-way (ROW) application CACA-48649 for the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project (DSSF). The DSSF is a solar photovoltaic (PV) facility, capable of producing 550 MW of electrical output. Southern California Edison (SCE) filed a ROW application to construct the 500-to-220 kiloVolt (kV) RedBluff substation (CACA-052682) where the project would interconnect with the SCE regional transmission system. The DSSF, along with the RedBluff Substation and other facilities, will be on 4,144 acres of BLM-managed lands approximately 6 miles north of Interstate-10 and the rural community of Desert Center in Riverside County, California. The project area is within 2 miles of Joshua Tree National Park. In addition to the project site, the project includes a distribution line, a 220-kV electrical gen-tie transmission line, fiber optic lines, and an access road. The RedBluff substation includes an access road and two offsite microwave telecommunication facilities. The gen-tie line will feed power into SCE's existing Devers-Palo Verde 1 500-kV transmission line.
The project site is in the California Desert District within the planning boundary of the CDCA Plan, which is the applicable RMP for the project site and the surrounding areas. The CDCA Plan, while recognizing the potential compatibility of solar generation facilities on public lands, requires that all sites associated with power generation or transmission not already identified in the Plan be considered through the BLM's land use plan amendment process. As a result, prior to approval of a ROW grant to the DSSF, the BLM must amend the CDCA Plan to allow the solar generating project on that site The approved Amendment to the CDCA Plan specifically revises the CDCA Plan to allow for the development of the DSSF and ancillary facilities on land managed by the BLM.
The BLM preferred Alternative would result in construction of the solar farm, capable of generating approximately 550 MW of electricity, the RedBluff Substation, and associated ancillary facilities. This 550-MW alternative and substation were evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS for the DSSF, RedBluff Substation, and the proposed CDCA Plan amendment was published in the
Publication of the Notice of Availability for the Final EIS initiated a 30-day protest period for the proposed amendment to the CDCA Plan. At the close of the 30-day period on May 16, 2011, seven timely and complete written protests were received and resolved. Their resolution is summarized in the Director's Protest Summary Report attached to the ROD. The proposed amendment to the CDCA Plan was not modified as a result of the protest resolution. Simultaneously with the protest period, the Governor of California conducted a 30-day consistency review of the proposed CDCA Plan amendment to identify any inconsistencies with State or local plan, policies or programs; no inconsistencies were identified.
Because this decision is approved by the Secretary of the Interior, it is not subject to administrative appeal (43 CFR, 4.410(a)(3)).
40 CFR 1506.6.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Extension of Scoping Period for Water Resources Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Mojave National Preserve.
Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Park Service is preparing a Water Resources Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (WRMP/EIS). This plan is intended to guide future management of ground and surface water sources within Mojave National Preserve. The original Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS (published in the
Comments must be received by August 12, 2011.
It will not be necessary for individuals, orgnaizations, and agencies that have already commented to do so again. All comments must now be postmarked or transmitted not later than August 12, 2011. Those respondents who prefer to comment electronically may do so via the project Web site,
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.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 23, 2011. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30434) and determined on September 7, 2010 that it would conduct full reviews (75 FR 59744, September 28, 2010). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on August 9, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4248
By order of the Commission.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: eForm 6 Access Request.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice requests comments from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until October 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Respondents must complete the eForm 6 Access Request form in order to receive a user ID and password to obtain access to ATF's eForm 6 System. The information is used by the Government to verify the identity of the end users prior to issuing passwords.
(5)
(6)
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice requests comments from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until October 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The data supplied by the applicant is used by ATF to determine if any environmental impact statement or environmental permit is necessary for the proposed operation.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 N Street, NE., Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice requests comments from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until October 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to e-mail them to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed information collection are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) primary purpose is to collect and disseminate data regarding the number of firearms produced by licensed manufacturers within one calendar year. The information from the AFMER report is used to compile statistics on the manufacture and exportation of firearms.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 4,300 respondents will complete a 20 minute form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,433 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508,
60-Day Notice of Information Collection under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact John W. Partridge, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; (202) 307-7297.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• 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 agencies' 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.
Overview of information collection 1117-0014:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Pamela Leupen, Associate Director, National Training and Program Development (NTPD), Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agencies/components, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Planning and Policy Staff, Justice Management Division, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):
Literature (application review): September 14-16, 2011 in Room 716. This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on September 14th and 15th, and from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on September 16th, will be closed.
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2011, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman. If you need any accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is revising its 1981 Policy Statement on Low-Level Waste (LLW) Volume Reduction. This statement encouraged licensees to take steps to reduce the amount of waste generated and to reduce its volume once generated. The purpose of the revised statement is to recognize that progress in reducing waste volume has been achieved since the 1981 Policy Statement was published and to acknowledge that factors other than volume reduction may be used by licensees to determine how best to manage their LLW. This draft Policy Statement is being issued for public comment.
Comments on the draft Policy Statement should be submitted by September 14, 2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0183 in the subject line of your comments. For instructions on submitting comments and accessing documents related to this action, see Section I, “Submitting Comments and Accessing Information” in the
•
•
Donald Lowman, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5452; e-mail:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the Federal rulemaking Web site
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
•
•
•
In 1981, the NRC published a Policy Statement regarding the volume
• The need for a volume reduction policy;
• Suggested volume reduction techniques;
• That NRC would take expeditious action on requests for licensing of volume reduction systems; and
• The need for waste generators to minimize the quantity of waste produced.
The NRC issued the Policy Statement in response to a General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)) report that recommended that NRC take this step to help preserve disposal facility space (GAO, 1980). The Policy Statement was issued when disposal space was scarce since two of the three operating low level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal sites had been threatening to close, and one had recently reduced the annual amount authorized for disposal by half. Further, volume reduction techniques were not yet in widespread use and NRC`s Policy Statement was meant to encourage the use of these techniques.
On April 7, 2010, staff published SECY-10-0043, “Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” and addressed the Policy Statement in response to stakeholder comments that large-scale blending may not be consistent with the Policy Statement because it would enable licensees to avoid the use of an available volume reduction technology. In the blending paper, staff stated in Option 2:
The staff believes that the Policy Statement could be updated to recognize the progress that has been achieved, and to acknowledge that other factors may be used by licensees in determining how best to manage their LLRW. Specifically, the Policy Statement could be revised to acknowledge that volume reduction continues to be important, but that risk-informed, performance-based approaches to managing waste are also appropriate in managing LLRW safely and that volume reduction should be evaluated in this light.
In the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-10-0043, the Commission approved Option 2, which included the staff's proposed changes noted above. Consequently, a revised Policy Statement on Volume Reduction and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management is being published for public comment.
In 1981, the Commission published a Policy Statement (46 FR 51100; October 16, 1981) regarding the volume reduction of LLW. On April 7, 2010, the NRC staff published SECY-10-0043 “Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste” in which it recommended updating the Policy Statement to acknowledge that volume reduction continues to be important, but that risk-informed, performance-based approaches to managing waste are also needed to safely manage LLRW. The Commission approved the staff's recommendation thus the Policy Statement is being revised.
The Commission recognizes the substantial progress made by licensees in reducing volumes of LLRW for disposal since the publication of the 1981 Volume Reduction Policy Statement. Nuclear industry groups have also played a central part in this effort by encouraging volume reduction practices among their members. Widespread use of these volume reduction practices has resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of LLW produced by licensees. The Commission recognizes that the high cost of disposal has been a factor, along with lack of disposal access, in the increased use of volume reduction techniques.
The Commission continues to believe that volume reduction is an important component in the management of LLW; a continued focus on volume reduction will extend the operational lifetime of the existing commercial low-level disposal sites and reduce the number of waste shipments.
Administrative controls and operational enhancements are the foundation of a successful radioactive waste management program. Therefore, the Commission encourages licensees to continue to adopt procedures that will reduce the volume of waste being transferred to disposal facilities. Additionally, as currently required by Title 10 of the
The Commission also recognizes that volume reduction is only one aspect of an effective radioactive waste management program. While the Commission continues to favor the disposal of LLRW over storage, it recognizes that licensees may manage waste in a variety of ways, consistent with NRC regulations and guidance. In addition to ensuring public health and safety, licensees should consider operational efficiency, reductions in occupational exposures, security, and cost in determining how best to manage LLRW. As part of their radioactive waste management strategies, licensees should consider all means available to manage waste in a manner that is secure and protects public health and safety, such as:
• Waste minimization.
• Short-term storage and decay.
• Long-term storage.
• Use of the alternate disposal provision contained in 10 CFR 20.2002.
• Use of waste processing technologies.
• Use of licensed disposal facilities.
The Commission understands that limited disposal access means that many licensees will be forced to store at least some of their LLW. Agreement State and NRC licensees must continue to ensure waste is safely and securely managed. However, disposal is considered the safest and most secure long-term management approach.
This Policy Statement does not contain new or amended information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Based on the comments received in both written and electronic form, the Commission will then be in a better position to proceed with the issuance of a final Policy Statement. The final Policy Statement, when issued by the Commission, will be published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.10, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate until January 31, 2012. The pilot is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate, until January 31, 2012.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, market-wide amendments to exchanges' rules for clearly erroneous executions to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades. In connection with this pilot initiative, the Exchange amended NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10(c), (e)(2), (f), and (g). The amendments provide for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews (1) In Multi-Stock Events
If the pilot were not extended, the prior versions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10 would be in effect, and NYSE Arca would have different rules than other exchanges and greater discretion in connection with breaking clearly erroneous transactions. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot amendments to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.10 until January 31, 2012 in order to maintain uniform rules across markets and allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption during the same period that the Rule 7.11 trading pause rule pilot is also in effect. Extension of the pilot would permit the Exchange, other national securities exchanges and the Commission to further assess the effect of the pilot on the marketplace, including whether additional measures should be added, whether the parameters of the rule should be modified or whether other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2128 (Clearly Erroneous Trades) to extend the expiration of the pilot rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2128 (Clearly Erroneous Trades) to
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 128, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate until January 31, 2012. The pilot is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 128, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate, until January 31, 2012. The pilot is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, market-wide amendments to exchanges' rules for clearly erroneous executions to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades. In connection with this pilot initiative, the Exchange amended NYSE Rule 128(c), (e)(2), (f), and (g). The amendments provide for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews (1) in Multi-Stock Events
If the pilot were not extended, the prior versions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g) of Rule 128 would be in effect, and the NYSE would have different rules than other exchanges and greater discretion in connection with breaking clearly erroneous transactions. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot amendments to NYSE Rule 128 until January 31, 2012 in order to maintain uniform rules across markets and allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption during the same period that the Rule 80C trading pause rule pilot is also in effect. Extension of the pilot would permit the Exchange, other national securities exchanges and the Commission to further assess the effect of the pilot on the marketplace, including whether additional measures should be added, whether the parameters of the rule should be modified or whether other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate until January 31, 2012. The pilot is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128, which governs clearly erroneous executions, to extend the effective date of the pilot by which portions of such Rule operate, until January 31, 2012.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, market-wide amendments to exchanges' rules for clearly erroneous executions to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades. In connection with this pilot initiative, the Exchange amended NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128(c), (e)(2), (f), and (g). The amendments provide for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews (1) In Multi-Stock Events
If the pilot were not extended, the prior versions of paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), and (g) of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128 would be in effect, and the NYSE Amex would have different rules than other exchanges and greater discretion in connection with breaking clearly erroneous transactions. The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot amendments to NYSE Amex Equities Rule 128 until January 31, 2012 in order to maintain uniform rules across markets and allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption during the same period that the Rule 80C trading pause rule pilot is also in effect. Extension of the pilot would permit the Exchange, other national securities exchanges and the Commission to further assess the effect of the pilot on the marketplace, including whether additional measures should be added, whether the parameters of the rule should be modified or whether other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of recent amendments to Rule 11890, concerning clearly erroneous transactions, so that the pilot will now expire on January 31, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The provisions of paragraphs (C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) of this Rule, as amended on September 10, 2010, shall be in effect during a pilot period set to end on
(a)-(f) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, for a pilot period to end December 10, 2010, a proposed rule change submitted by the Exchange, together with related rule changes of the BATS Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., International Securities Exchange LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and National Stock Exchange, Inc., to amend certain of their respective rules to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades.
The Exchange believes that the pilot program has been successful in providing greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking erroneous trades. The Exchange also believes that an additional extension of the pilot is warranted so that it may continue to monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.
Accordingly, the Exchange is filing to further extend the pilot program until January 31, 2012, and to eliminate language from the rule concerning the “limit up/limit down” mechanism.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 1080 (Phlx XL and XL II) to correct a typographical error.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to correct a typographical error in subsection (m)(iii)(D) of Rule 1080.
On July 13, 2011, the Exchange filed an immediately effective proposal to amend Phlx Rule 1080(m)
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend EDGA Rule 11.13 to extend the operation of a pilot pursuant to the Rule (the “Pilot”) until January 31, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the Exchange's current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions, Rule 11.13, through January 31, 2012.
The rule, explained in further detail below, was initially approved to operate under a Pilot program set to expire on December 10, 2010.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a Pilot basis, changes to EDGA Rule 11.13 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary market and subsequent transactions that occur before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.13 to extend the operation of a pilot pursuant to the Rule (the “Pilot”) until January 31, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the Exchange's current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions, Rule 11.13, through January 31, 2012.
The rule, explained in further detail below, was initially approved to operate under a Pilot program set to expire on December 10, 2010.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a Pilot basis, changes to EDGX Rule 11.13 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary market and subsequent transactions that occur before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2102 (Hours of Business) to extend the expiration of the pilot rule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2102 to extend the expiration of the pilot rule. Initial amendments to ISE Rule 2102 to allow the Exchange to pause trading in an individual stock when the primary listing market for such stock issues a trading pause were approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) on June 10, 2010 on a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010.
On September 10, 2010, ISE Rule 2102 was amended to expand the pilot rule to apply to the Russell 1000® Index and other specified exchange traded products.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6121 (Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility) to extend the effective date of the pilot, which is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011, until January 31, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 6121.01 to extend the effective date of the pilot by which such rule operates, which is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011, until January 31, 2012.
FINRA Rule 6121.01 provides that if a primary listing market has issued an individual stock trading pause under its rules, FINRA will halt trading otherwise than on an exchange in that security until trading has resumed on the primary listing market. The pilot was developed and implemented as a market-wide initiative by FINRA and other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) in consultation with Commission staff, and is currently applicable to the S&P 500® Index,
The extension proposed herein would allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption while FINRA and the other SROs further assess the effect of the pilot on the marketplace and whether other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
Additionally, extension of the pilot to January 31, 2012 would allow the pilot to continue to operate without
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the individual stock trading pause pilot program pertaining to the CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX,” the CBOE's stock trading facility). This rule change simply seeks to extend the pilot. No other changes to the pilot are being proposed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Rule 6.3C,
Extension of the pilot period will allow the Exchange to continue to operate the pilot on an uninterrupted basis. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to waive the Trading Permit Holder application fee on the CBOE Stock Exchange (“CBSX”) for the month of August 2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
CBSX normally applies the CBOE Trading Permit Holder Application Fees to any applicant that applies to be a CBSX Trading Permit Holder. CBSX hereby proposes, for the month of August 2011 only, to waive such fees and not charge any fees for applications to become a CBSX Trading Permit Holder. The purpose of this “pricing special” is to incentivize broker-dealers and other market participants who are not currently CBSX Trading Permit Holders to apply to become CBSX Trading Permit Holders and begin to effect transactions on CBSX. To that end, CBSX is willing to subsidize the application costs for the month of August 2011. The proposed waiver should incentivize broker-dealers and other market participants to apply to become CBSX Trading Permit Holders, and the increased number of Trading Permit Holders on CBSX will bring greater liquidity to CBSX, which would benefit all current CBSX Trading Permit Holders.
The proposed rule change will take effect on August 1, 2011 and cease effectiveness on August 31, 2011.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of recent amendments to Rule 3312, concerning clearly erroneous transactions, so that the pilot will now expire on January 31, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(C), (b), and (c)(1) of this Rule, as amended by SR-Phlx-2010-125, shall be in effect during a pilot period set to end on
(a)-(f) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, for a pilot period to end December 10, 2010, a proposed rule change submitted by the BATS Exchange, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and National Stock Exchange, Inc. (collectively, the “Exchanges”), to amend certain of their respective rules to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades.
The Exchange believes that the pilot program has been successful in providing greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking erroneous trades. The Exchange also believes that an additional extension of the pilot is warranted so that it may continue to monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.
Accordingly, the Exchange is filing to further extend the pilot program until January 31, 2012 and to eliminate language from the rule concerning the “limit up/limit down” mechanism.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to renumber a subsection of NASDAQ Options Market Chapter VI, Section 10. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Chapter VI, Trading Systems.
System orders shall be executed through the Nasdaq Book Process set forth below:
(1)-(5) No Change.
([5]
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to make a clerical correction to the NASDAQ rulebook. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes to renumber NASDAQ Options Market Chapter VI, Section 10. On June 14, 2011, NASDAQ submitted a proposed rule filing to adopt anti-internalization functionality for registered market makers on the NASDAQ Options Market. The Commission published the notice of filing and immediate effectiveness on June 23, 2011.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period of recent amendments to Rule 11890, concerning clearly erroneous transactions, so that the pilot will now expire on January 31, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The provisions of paragraphs (C), (c)(1), (b)(i), and (b)(ii) of this Rule, as amended on September 10, 2010, shall be in effect during a pilot period set to end on
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, for a pilot period to end December 10, 2010, a proposed rule change submitted by the Exchange, together with related rule changes of the BATS Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., International Securities Exchange LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., and National Stock Exchange, Inc., to amend certain of their respective rules to set forth clearer standards and curtail discretion with respect to breaking erroneous trades.
The Exchange believes that the pilot program has been successful in providing greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking erroneous trades. The Exchange also believes that an additional extension of the pilot is warranted so that it may continue to monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.
Accordingly, the Exchange is filing to further extend the pilot program until January 31, 2012 and to eliminate language from the rule concerning the “limit up/limit down” mechanism.
The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
CHX proposes to amend its rules to extend the pilot program relating to clearly erroneous transactions. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at (
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In September, 2010, CHX obtained Commission approval of a filing amending its rules relating to clearly erroneous transactions on a pilot basis until December 10, 2010.
Approval of the rule change proposed in this submission is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes [sic] amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the “Options Pricing” section of its fee schedule to: (i) Increase the fees applicable to removing liquidity from the BATS options market (“BATS Options”); (ii) decrease the rebates applicable to adding liquidity to BATS Options; (iii) decrease the rebates paid, subject to average daily volume requirements, for orders that set either the national best bid (the “NBB”) or the national best offer (the “NBO”); (iv) adopt a program to incentivize sustained, aggressive quoting in certain specified options series (the “Quoting Incentive Program” or “QIP”); and (v) adopt a change to the standard routing fee for the CYCLE, RECYCLE, Parallel D, Parallel 2D, and Destination Specific routing strategies
The Exchange currently charges standard fees of $0.30 per contract for Customer orders and $0.40 per contract for Firm and Market Maker
The Exchange currently maintains a tiered pricing structure through which Members can realize lower liquidity removal fees if such Members have an
The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.25 per contract for all Customer orders that add liquidity to BATS Options. The Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate for adding liquidity to $0.22 for Customer orders.
The Exchange currently provides a rebate of $0.25 per contract for Firm and Market Maker orders that are removed by Customer orders and $0.35 per contract for orders that are removed by Firm or Market Maker orders. The removing Member's fee is determined without regard to the capacity of the adding party. Consistent with the reduction of Customer rebates described above, the Exchange proposes to reduce each of these liquidity adding rebates by $0.03. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to provide a rebate of $0.22 per contract for Firm and Market Maker orders that are removed by Customer orders and $0.32 per contract for orders that are removed by Firm or Market Maker orders. As is the case under the current pricing structure, the removing Member's fee will be determined without regard to the capacity of the adding party.
The Exchange believes that, because Members can neither see the capacity of orders in the Exchange's order book nor determine the capacity of the Member that removes an order, the proposal will not disadvantage public investors or Members. Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to the fee schedule is substantively similar to a pricing plan in place at NASDAQ OMX PHLX.
The Exchange currently offers a rebate upon execution for all orders that add liquidity that sets either the NBB or NBO (the “NBBO Setter Rebate”),
BATS Options proposes to introduce a Quoting Incentive Program (QIP), through which BATS Options will provide a rebate of $0.03 per contract, in addition to any other liquidity rebate other than an NBBO Setter Program liquidity rebate, for executions subject to the QIP. The QIP will only apply to executions in options overlying XLF, CSCO, PFE, ORCL, and XRT. To qualify for the QIP a BATS Options Market Maker must be at the NBB or NBO 70% of the time for series trading between $0.03 and $5.00 for the front three (3) expiration months in that underlying during the current trading month. A Member not registered as a BATS Market Maker can also qualify for the QIP by quoting at the NBB or NBO 80% of the time in the same series.
The Exchange will determine whether a market maker qualifies for QIP rebates at the end of each month by looking back at each Member's (including BATS Options Market Makers) quoting statistics during that month. If at the end of the month a Market Maker meets the 70% criteria or a Member that is not registered as a BATS Options Market Maker meets the 80% criteria, the Exchange will provide the additional rebate for all executions subject to the QIP executed by that Market Maker or Member during that month. The Exchange will provide Members with a report on a daily basis with quoting statistics so such Members can determine whether or not they are meeting the QIP criteria. As noted above, the QIP will not be additive to NBBO Setter Program rebates. The Exchange is not proposing to impose any ADV requirements in order to qualify for the QIP at this time.
The Exchange currently charges a flat fee per contract of $0.06 for all executions of Customer orders routed through the CYCLE, RECYCLE, Parallel D, Parallel 2D and Destination Specific routing strategies in non-“Make/Take” issues,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
The changes to Exchange execution fees and rebates proposed by this filing are intended to attract order flow to the Exchange by continuing to offer competitive pricing while also creating incentives to providing aggressively priced displayed liquidity. While Members that remove liquidity from the Exchange and/or route Customer orders through the Exchange's standard routing strategies will pay higher fees and Members that add liquidity to the Exchange will receive lower rebates due to the proposal, the increased revenue received by the Exchange will be used to fund programs that the Exchange believes will attract additional liquidity and thus improve the depth of liquidity available on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the higher access and routing fees and lower rebates will benefit Members' results in trading on the Exchange to the extent the tiered rebate structure offered by the Exchange for adding liquidity, the continued operation of the NBBO Setter Program, and the adoption of the Quoting Incentive Program (QIP) incentivize liquidity providers to provide more aggressively priced liquidity.
Despite the increase in fees and decrease in rebates for all Members, the Exchange also believes that its proposed fee structure is fair and equitable as the Exchange's standard fees generally still remain lower, and standard rebates generally still remain higher, than standard fees charged and rebates paid by other markets with similar fee structures, such as NYSE Arca and Nasdaq. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change to the Exchange's standard routing fee for Customer orders to certain venues is competitive, fair and reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that the increase will allow the Exchange to cover additional infrastructure costs attendant with offering routing services. The Exchange also notes that although routing options are available to all Members, Members are not required to use the Exchange's routing services, but instead, the Exchange's routing services are completely optional. Members can manage their own routing to different options exchanges or can utilize a myriad of other routing solutions that are available to market participants. Additional revenue generated through the increased liquidity removal and routing fees as well as reduction of certain rebates, as described above, will allow the Exchange to offer competitive pricing and incentives, such as the NBBO Setter Program and QIP.
The Exchange believes that continuing to base its tiered fee structure and NBBO Setter Program based on overall TCV, rather than a static number of contracts irrespective of overall volume in the options industry, is a fair and equitable approach to pricing. Volume-based tiers such as the tiers in place on the Exchange have been widely adopted in the equities markets, and are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide rebates that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed Quoting Incentive Program, similar to a fee structure in place on at least one of the Exchange's competitors,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 11892 (Clearly Erroneous Transactions in Exchange-Listed Securities) to extend the effective date of the pilot, which is currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011, until January 31, 2012.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 11892.02 to extend the effective date of the amendments set forth in File No. SR-FINRA-2010-032 (the “pilot”), which are currently scheduled to expire on August 11, 2011, until January 31, 2012.
The pilot was drafted in consultation with other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and Commission staff to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before the trading pause is in effect for transactions otherwise than on an exchange. FINRA also implemented additional changes to the Rule as part of the pilot that reduce the ability of FINRA to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the Rule.
The extension proposed herein would allow the pilot to continue to operate without interruption while FINRA and the other SROs further assess whether the pilot should be adopted permanently and whether other initiatives should be adopted in lieu of the current pilot.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its 2011 Price List (“Price List”) for equity transactions to amend the tiered structure of credits to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (“SLPs”) for adding liquidity to the Exchange in NYSE-listed securities with a per share stock p