Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Wage and Hour Division
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety 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), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends Class E airspace for the Hawaiian Islands, HI. The FAA is taking this action in response to a request from the Honolulu Control Facility (HCF) to better clarify the legal description of controlled airspace designated as Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface for the Hawaiian Islands, HI. This action enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
The FAA received a request from the Honolulu Control Facility to clarify the legal description of the existing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. The current legal description is vague and confusing; this action is in response to that request.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the legal description of the Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface for the Hawaiian Islands, HI. The legal description has been clarified to avoid confusion on the part of pilots flying in the Hawaiian Islands, HI. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace for the Hawaiian Islands, HI.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 5,500 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 23°56′48″ N., long. 160°45′50″ W.; to lat. 24°18′48″ N., long. 157°16′50″ W.; to lat. 24°02′48″ N., long. 156°18′50″ W.; to lat. 23°31′48″ N., long. 155°28′50″ W.; to lat. 22°59′48″ N., long. 154°38′50″ W.; to lat. 22°21′48″ N., long. 153°52′50″ W.; to lat. 21°42′48″ N., long. 153°08′50″ W.; to lat. 20°48′48″ N., long. 152°59′50″ W.; to lat. 20°15′49″ N., long. 152°13′50″ W.; to lat. 19°13′49″ N., long. 151°53′50″ W.; to lat. 18°18′49″ N., long. 157°48′50″ W.; to lat. 18°25′49″ N., long. 158°53′50″ W.; to lat. 18°52′49″ N., long. 159°52′50″ W.; to lat. 19°31′49″ N., long. 160°35′50″ W.; to lat. 20°05′49″ N., long. 161°51′50″ W.; to lat. 21°00′49″ N., long. 162°13′50″ W.; to lat. 21°55′49″ N., long. 162°28′50″ W.; to lat. 22°49′49″ N., long. 162°13′50″ W.; to lat. 23°31′49″ N., long. 161°34′50″ W.; to the point of beginning.That airspace extending upward
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Clemson, SC, as a runway extension requires amended Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Oconee County Regional Airport. This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System. This action also changes the airport name.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
On July 1, 2011, the FAA published in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clemson, SC, to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Oconee County Regional Airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action also recognizes the airport name change from Clemson-Oconee County Airport to Oconee County Regional Airport, Clemson, SC.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Oconee County Regional Airport, Clemson, SC.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.5-mile radius of Oconee County Regional Airport.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is establishing an internal procedure for delegating its authority to seek court orders to delay notification and prohibit disclosure of Commission compulsory process under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), the Electronic
This final rule is effective September 2, 2011.
Alex Tang,
The RFPA and the ECPA require the FTC, in certain cases, to notify customers when seeking their records from financial institutions or service providers subject to those statutes in the Commission's law enforcement investigations and proceedings.
Under this final rule, delegating the Commission's authority pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1961, 26 FR 6191, either an individual Commissioner or the General Counsel may authorize the staff to file actions seeking delay of notification and prohibition of disclosure under the statutes cited above. This delegation will facilitate the Commission's exercise of this authority and, as solely a matter of internal agency administration, is not intended to confer any enforceable right, privilege, or benefit on behalf of any person.
The FTC has determined that publication of this rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is warranted because this is a rule of agency procedure and practice and therefore is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Because it is a non-substantive rule, the Commission shall make the rule effective immediately upon publication.
Because the Commission has determined that it may issue this rule without public comment, the Commission is also not required to publish any initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act as part of such action.
The final rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure.
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Trade Commission is amending Subpart A of part 2 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 46, unless otherwise noted.
Upon authorization by the Commissioner who issues compulsory process pursuant to § 2.7(a) or, alternatively, upon authorization by the General Counsel, Commission attorneys may seek to delay notifications or prohibit disclosures pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3409), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2705), or section 7 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act (15 U.S.C. 57b-2a).
By direction of the Commission.
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document adopts as a final rule that portion of a notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the
This rule is effective October 3, 2011.
Monika Brenner, Chief, Valuation and Special Programs Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0038.
On July 25, 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the
The notice of proposed rulemaking, in part, proposed amendments to the CBP regulations to extend application of the rules of origin codified in part 102 to all country of origin determinations made
The July 25, 2008, document also proposed amendments to the country of origin rules codified in part 102 in regard to five specific product areas: Pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber, rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products. A brief discussion of the proposed changes for these five product areas is set forth below. For a more detailed discussion of these proposed changes, please see the July 25, 2008, NPRM.
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in § 102.20(n), CBP regulations (19 CFR 102.20), for goods classified in headings 7301 through 7307, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), to provide for a change within heading 7307 from fitting forgings or flange forgings to fittings or flanges made ready for commercial use by certain processing, including beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, heat treating, recoining or resizing, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces other than a gasket face, drilling bolt holes, and burring or shot blasting. CBP stated in the NPRM that the proposed change is consistent with the decision in
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in § 102.20(j) for goods classified in headings 4901 through 4911, HTSUS, which includes printed greeting cards, by creating a specific rule for heading 4909, providing for a change to that heading from any other heading except from heading 4911 when the change is a result of adding text. CBP explained in the July 25, 2008, NPRM that the effect of this proposed change is to enable the country of origin of all printed greeting cards to be determined according to the country of initial printing of literary text, photographs, graphic designs, or illustrations. CBP further stated that this proposed change is consistent with CBP practice in applying the substantial transformation standard to printed materials, as reflected in CBP's administrative rulings.
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in § 102.20(q) for subheading 9001.10, HTSUS, which encompasses optical fibers and optical fiber bundles and cables, by providing for a change to subheading 9001.10 from any other subheading, except from subheading 8544.70, HTSUS, or glass preforms of heading 7002, HTSUS. CBP stated in the NPRM that this proposed change would conform the tariff shift rule to the determination in CBP Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 560660 dated April 9, 1999, that no substantial transformation (and thus no change in origin) results for purposes of the country of marking statute (19 U.S.C. 1304) from the drawing of a glass preform into optical fiber.
CBP proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in § 102.20(d) for subheading 1904.90, HTSUS, which encompasses certain rice preparations, by providing for a change to subheading 1904.90 from any other heading, except from heading 1006, HTSUS, or wild rice of subheading 1008.90, HTSUS. CBP explained in the NPRM that this proposed change would eliminate the inconsistency between the tariff shift rule and HRL 967925 dated February 28, 2006, in which CBP held that no substantial transformation results for purposes of the country of origin marking statute when rice is processed with 2% water, 0.4% sunflower oil, 0.2% salt, and 0.4% soy lecithin, placed into cups and sealed, and thermally processed.
In regard to the rules of origin for textile and apparel products set forth in § 102.21, CBP regulations (19 CFR 102.21), CBP proposed two amendments to § 102.21 to properly align the rules with the language of the underlying statute, 19 U.S.C. 3592. First, CBP proposed to amend § 102.21(c)(3)(ii) by adding the words “fabrics of chapter 59 and” so that the amended text would read “Except for fabrics of chapter 59 and goods of heading * * *.” As explained in the NPRM, this change would have the effect of ensuring that fabrics of chapter 59, HTSUS, derive their country of origin from where the fabric is formed, consistent with 19 U.S.C. 3592(b)(1)(C).
CBP also proposed to amend the tariff shift rule in § 102.21(e) for goods classified in headings 6210 through 6212, HTSUS, by creating a separate rule for heading 6212, which encompasses “brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, whether or not knitted or crocheted.” CBP noted in the NPRM that the existing tariff shift rule for headings 6210 through 6212 does not provide for the possibility of knit-to-shape goods, even though the body-supporting garments of heading 6212 may be knit to shape. CBP stated that this proposed change would ensure that a knit-to-shape good of heading 6212 is found to derive its origin from where the good is knit to shape in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 3592(b)(2)(A)(ii).
The July 25, 2008, NPRM provided for a sixty-day period (until September 23, 2008) for the submission of public comments on the proposed regulatory changes. The comment period was extended an additional 30 days by a notice published in the
A total of 70 commenters responded to the solicitation of public comments, 14 of which provided multiple submissions. Forty-two of the commenters expressed opposition to the proposed uniform application of the country of origin rules set forth in part 102, while 16 commenters raised
In regard to the proposed amendments to the part 102 rules of origin relating to the five specific product areas, six comments were received in regard to two of the product areas. Four commenters discussed the proposed change in the rules pertaining to pipe fittings and flanges, while two commenters addressed the proposed change in the rules regarding glass optical fiber.
Set forth below is a discussion of the comments or portions of comments received that addressed the NPRM's comment period, concerns of a general nature regarding the technical corrections to the part 102 tariff shift rules to reflect the 2007 modifications to the HTSUS, and the proposed amendments to the part 102 rules of origin relating to pipe fittings and flanges and glass optical fiber.
It is noted that a number of comments recommended specific changes to the rules of origin in part 102 other than those that had been proposed. Although CBP considers these comments to be outside the scope of the July 25, 2008, NPRM, CBP nevertheless is reviewing these comments and if, as a result of that review, we determine that additional amendments to the part 102 tariff shift rules are warranted, these changes will be incorporated in a future notice of proposed rulemaking.
Forty-two commenters opposed implementation of the proposal to establish uniform rules governing CBP determinations of the country of origin of imported merchandise.
Based on the public comments received in regard to the uniform rules of origin proposal, CBP has determined not to proceed with this proposal. As a result, CBP believes that it is unnecessary to discuss the comments or portions of comments that addressed the proposed amendments relating to the uniform rules of origin proposal.
Two commenters requested a 90-day extension of the public comment period beyond the original due date of September 23, 2008, and two commenters requested an additional 60 days within which to submit comments beyond the extended due date of December 1, 2008.
As noted previously, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published on July 25, 2008, with comments due on or before September 23, 2008. The comment period was extended by a notice published in the
Fifteen commenters maintained that the part 102 tariff shift rules are outdated as they fail to reflect the modifications to the HTSUS that became effective on February 3, 2007 (
One of these commenters noted that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) country of origin rules in part 102 are static in that they are the result of tripartite negotiations with other sovereigns. As a result, the commenter stated that CBP is without authority to make changes to any of the rules without obtaining agreement from Canada and Mexico. The commenter suggested that the uniform tariff shift rules should be placed elsewhere in the CBP regulations so as to more easily facilitate future changes to the rules.
As previously noted, a final rule document published in the
CBP disagrees with the contention by one commenter that the rules set forth in §§ 102.1 through 102.20 (referred to as the “NAFTA Marking Rules”) are “static” as no changes may be made without obtaining agreement with Canada and Mexico. The NAFTA Marking Rules set forth in part 102 are used by the United States under Annex 311 of the NAFTA to determine the country of origin of goods imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico. The United States has full authority to amend those rules whenever it deems it necessary to do so. Of course, the United States engages in consultations with the governments of Canada and Mexico on a regular basis to discuss a number of issues arising under the NAFTA, which may include any amendments being made by each member Party to its NAFTA Marking Rules.
With respect to the October 30, 2008, technical corrections final rule document, two commenters contended that these updates appear to have been prepared without proper vetting by the trade as they contain numerous errors. A third commenter stated that the technical corrections “do not make logical sense across the board”, while two additional commenters criticized the corrections as interjecting a “description-oriented origin determination process, rather than a tariff shift basis.” Two of these commenters maintained that the inclusion of “description-shifts” or the need to subjectively characterize devices within a subheading negates any supposed objective advantage regarding tariff-shift rules and is contrary to the spirit of the original NAFTA agreement regarding origin which was predicated on a clearly-defined shift from one tariff number to another. In addition, it was asserted that using descriptions rather than tariff numbers to determine if a rule has been met hinders or eliminates importers from applying automation to the process, resulting in increased costs to determine if foreign components meet the “description-shift”.
CBP acknowledges that the tariff shift rules in § 102.20, as amended by the October 30, 2008, final rule document, contain more descriptions than the prior version but disagrees with the characterization that we are interjecting a description-oriented origin determination process into the tariff-shift system. Our use of certain descriptions is necessitated by the substantial changes in 2007 to portions of the HTSUS, which involved moving a number of goods from various headings or subheadings and concentrating them into one heading or subheading, or vice versa, as well as deleting or adding headings and subheadings. In order to reflect the existing tariff shift rules for the affected goods in their new locations, it was necessary to name or describe goods so that there would be no doubt as to which rule applies to which good.
With regard to the “logical sense” of the corrections, CBP notes that the rules were merely updated to reflect the HTSUS 2007 changes. The update required changes in product coverage and/or numbering of certain headings and subheadings and was not intended to have any other substantive effect.
A commenter contended that the “technical corrections” to §§ 102.20 and 102.21 failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (19 U.S.C. 553) which renders the technical corrections invalid or subject to invalidation by the courts. According to the commenter, CBP should have adhered to the standard notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirement of the APA. The commenter stated that none of the exceptions to the APA notice and comment procedures apply in this case as the amendments to the part 102 rules are far more than “technical” amendments to rules previously existing; they are, in many cases, entirely new rules of origin which speak to entirely new tariff subheadings that did not previously exist. The commenter maintained that these are substantive rules which impose obligations on broad classes of persons in that they dictate the country of origin which must be applied to certain classes of imported merchandise.
CBP disagrees with the assertion by one commenter that the October 30, 2008, “technical corrections” final rule document that amended the part 102 tariff shift rules failed to comply with the requirements of the APA because the amendments were far more than “technical” but were substantive in nature. As explained in the final rule document, the 2007 modifications to the HTSUS resulted in certain tariff provisions being added or removed and certain goods being transferred to different or newly-created tariff provisions. Therefore, to properly conform the tariff shift rules in §§ 102.20 and 102.21 to the current version of the HTSUS, it was necessary, depending on each particular HTSUS change, to create an additional rule, remove an existing rule or portion of a rule, or otherwise modify a rule. However, it is important to recognize that these changes to §§ 102.20 and 102.21 were made to ensure that the application of the rules would produce precisely the
The October 30, 2008, “technical corrections” are contrasted with the amendments made by this final rule document to the tariff shift rules in § 102.20 relating to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber, and rice preparations. The changes promulgated in this final rule are substantive in nature as they are designed to produce
Specifically in regard to the APA, CBP stated in the final rule document that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), it had determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay publication of the rule in final form pending an opportunity for public comment and that there was good cause for the rule to become effective immediately upon publication. The document included as the reasons for this determination that the technical corrections merely conformed the tariff shift rules to the current HTSUS and that the amendments facilitated trade by ensuring that country of origin determinations made using the regulations were consistent with the HTSUS. In this regard, CBP wishes to emphasize that, prior to the technical corrections made by the October 30, 2008, final rule document, §§ 102.20 and 102.21 failed to provide accurate tariff shift rules for many of the goods affected by the 2007 modifications to the HTSUS. It was necessary to make these technical corrections at the earliest possible time so that both the public and CBP could properly rely on these rules to accurately determine the country of origin of all goods imported from Canada and Mexico, as required by Annex 311 of the NAFTA, as well as all imported textile and apparel goods. Thus, CBP believes that it appropriately invoked the exceptions described above to the notice, comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA.
It is noted that CBP published in the
Three commenters expressed support for the proposed tariff shift change for pipe fittings and flanges of heading 7307, HTSUS, set forth in the July 25, 2008, NPRM that would allow a change within heading 7307 from fitting forgings or flange forgings to fittings or flanges made ready for commercial use by certain processing. The commenters stated that the proposed change, which is consistent with the result in
CBP agrees with the commenters that the tariff shift change for pipe fittings and flanges of heading 7307, as proposed in the July 25, 2008, NPRM, is consistent with the court's holding in
One commenter disagreed with the proposed change in the tariff shift rule for pipe fittings and flanges, arguing that the change would permit U.S. finishers of imported fittings and flanges to
This commenter contended that the proposed change is contrary to the country of marking statute (19 U.S.C. 1304) as paragraph (c) of the statute prohibits the establishment of marking exemptions for certain imported pipes and fittings. In addition, the commenter stated that, if CBP truly wishes to codify the substantial transformation standard from
CBP disagrees with the commenter. As stated previously, the tariff shift rule is being revised to follow the holding of the court in
Further, the revised tariff shift rule will not change the statutory requirement set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1304(c) that imported pipes and pipe fittings of steel, stainless steel, chrome-moly steel, or cast and malleable iron must be marked with the English name of the country of origin by means of die stamping, cast-in mold lettering, etching, engraving, or continuous paint stenciling. The revised rule also will not affect the statutory prohibition in section 1304(c) against applying any of the marking exceptions set forth in 1304(a)(3) to the above-described pipes and pipe fittings. The described pipes and pipe fittings will continue to be subject to the special country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304(c).
A commenter concurred with the proposed change to the part 102 tariff shift rule for glass optical fiber, as set forth in the July 25, 2008, NPRM. However, the commenter suggested that the reference in the proposed rule to “glass preforms of heading 7002” should be changed to “glass preforms of chapter 70” to take into account any possible change in the classification of glass preforms in the future. The commenter noted in this regard that CBP's decision to classify the preforms in heading 7002 may be contested in court. Thus, the commenter explained that this suggested modification is made solely in the interest of administrative economy and prudence.
Another commenter urged that CBP deny the requested modification to the rule for optical fiber described above for the reason that there is well-established precedent for the classification of fiber preforms in heading 7002. In the view of this commenter, the suggested change to “glass preforms of chapter 70” is unusually broad and inconsistent with CBP's goal of increasing certainty and objectivity for all parties. The commenter stated that tariff shift rules should be crafted using the most precise tariff classifications available as reflected in CBP's own existing classification determinations.
While it is always conceivable that the tariff classification of an article may change for a variety of reasons, including decisions of the courts or CBP, the second commenter above is correct that the text of each tariff shift rule is crafted using the most precise classification available. If it becomes necessary to make a change to the rules as a result of a classification change, this would be done by means of a new rulemaking document.
After analysis of the comments and further consideration, CBP has determined to proceed as follows:
The portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 25, 2008, that proposed amendments to establish uniform rules governing CBP determinations of the country of origin of imported merchandise is withdrawn.
The portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed amendments to the country of origin rules codified in part 102 that apply to pipe fittings and flanges, greeting cards, glass optical fiber, rice preparations, and certain textile and apparel products is adopted as a final rule without change.
Although CBP considers comments received in response to the NPRM that suggested additional specific changes to the rules of origin codified in 19 CFR part 102 to be outside the scope of the NPRM, CBP is reviewing these comments. If, as a result of that review, it is determined that additional amendments to the part 102 rules are warranted, these changes will be incorporated in a future notice of proposed rulemaking.
The amendments set forth in this document do not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866 because they will not result in the expenditure of over $100 million in any one year. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under that Order.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.
CBP duties and inspections, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rules of origin, Trade agreements.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, part 102 of the CBP regulations (19 CFR part 102) is amended as set forth below.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624, 3314, 3592.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Except for fabrics of chapter 59 and goods of heading 5609, 5807, 5811, 6213, 6214, 6301 through 6306, and 6308, and subheadings 6209.20.5040, 6307.10, 6307.90, and 9404.90, if the good was not knit to shape and the good was wholly assembled in a single country, territory, or insular possession, the country of origin of the good is the country, territory, or insular possession in which the good was wholly assembled.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Supplemental interim final rule and request for comments.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is issuing this interim final rule to supplement an interim final rule published on February 10, 2011 (
By this supplemental interim final rule, foreign governments will be allowed to submit certifications in either the format that was in use prior to the effective date of the
In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, the Department requires commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
Commenters who do not have access to the Internet may submit the original and two copies of each set of comments by mail or hand delivery/courier. All comments should be addressed to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1870, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department will consider all relevant comments regarding the supplemental interim final rule that are received before the close of the comment period. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for inspection at Import Administration's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building) or on the Federal eRulemaking Portal (“Portal”) at
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access to the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482-0866, e-mail address:
Rebecca Cantu, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, or Myrna Lobo, International Trade Analyst, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-4618 or 202-482-2371, respectively.
In the
Some of the comments received in response to the
In addition, the new certification requirements include language which, certain parties claim, imposes additional, enforceable legal obligations on foreign governments. These parties have identified language in the new certifications which indicates that the submitter is aware that the Department may preserve the submission for purposes of determining the accuracy of a certification, even if a party otherwise withdraws the submission from the record, and also language which indicates that the submitter must maintain the original of the certification for a five-year period. These parties contend that the purported additional legal obligations which this language imposes are also contrary to principles of sovereign immunity.
The Department requires additional time to analyze these comments as they relate specifically to the government certifications, to obtain public views on the comments described above, and to address fully the parties' comments. We are therefore supplementing the
In light of the comments received on the
This supplemental interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Department finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment before this regulation becomes
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
It has been determined that this rulemaking is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
It has been determined that the rulemaking does not contain federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping duties, Business and industry, Confidential business information, Countervailing duties, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, 19 CFR part 351 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671
(g)
(1) For the person(s) officially responsible for presentation of the factual information:
(i)
I,
* For multiple person certifications, all persons should be listed in the first sentence of the certification and all persons should sign and date the certification. In addition, singular pronouns and possessive adjectives should be changed accordingly, e.g., “I” should be changed to “we” and “my knowledge” should be changed to “our knowledge.”
(ii)
I,
I, (name and title), currently employed by (person), certify that (1) I have read the attached submission, and (2) the information contained in this submission is, to the best of my knowledge, complete and accurate.
(2) For the legal counsel or other representative:
I,
Social Security Administration.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
We are publishing the process we follow when we ban an individual from entering our field offices. Due to escalating reports of threats to our personnel and our customers in our offices, we are taking steps to increase the level of protection we provide. We expect that this rule will result in a safer environment for our personnel and members of the public who use our facilities, while ensuring that we continue to serve the American people with as little disruption to our operations as possible.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2011-0052 so that we can associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Bill McClelland, Office of Public Service and Operations Support, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, 410-965-8004. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
Preventing violence is a growing concern for all Federal agencies, particularly the Social Security Administration. We touch the lives of virtually every American, often during times of personal hardship, transition, and uncertainty. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, we had 45 million visits to our field offices, 738,000 hearings before administrative law judges, and over 67 million calls to our national 800 number. Most interactions occur without incident, and 90% of visitors responding to our annual surveys rate our service as excellent, very good, or good. However, some people who visit or call our offices make threatening statements to and against our employees, other government employees, members of the public, our guards, and our office buildings. Unfortunately, some people go beyond verbal threats and physically assault our employees, guards, and members of the public.
As our workloads have risen in recent years, the number of reported threats to our employees has increased significantly. In FY 2010, we received nearly 2,800 reports of threats to our employees across the Nation, an increase of 43% from FY 2009. We respond promptly to these incidents and refer them to law enforcement for further action, when appropriate. We have increased the security measures in our field and hearing offices. We are using the resources Congress provided to handle disability benefit claims more quickly and accurately; we expect these actions will minimize the anxiety that claimants may experience when they seek benefits from us.
As we work to make our offices safer, we must consider risks to the public and our personnel, as well as our service delivery obligations. When we deem it necessary, we may ban an individual from entering our offices.
Section 702(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (Act) provides that the Commissioner is “responsible for the exercise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the [agency], and shall have authority and control over all personnel and activities thereof.” The Act also authorizes the Commissioner to “prescribe such rules and regulations as [he or she] determines are necessary or appropriate to carry out the functions” of the agency. Section 702(a)(5) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). In order to ensure that the agency operates in an effective manner, the Commissioner determines the methods for providing service to the public and the means for minimizing operational disruptions.
The Commissioner's authority extends to placing reasonable restrictions on an individual's access to in-person services. Courts have held that an individual's right of access to Federal property can reasonably be limited in the interest of public safety.
In this final rule, we describe the process we will follow when determining whether to ban an individual from our offices. We may ban an individual from our offices when he or she: (1) Uses force or threats of force against our personnel or offices, including sending threatening letters or other communications; (2) engages in disruptive conduct that impedes our personnel from performing their duties; or (3) engages in disruptive behavior that prevents members of the public from obtaining services from us. When we ban an individual, the ban will apply to all of our offices nationwide.
We will ban an individual only after an agency manager determines that the individual poses a threat to the safety of our personnel or our visitors, our offices, or the operational effectiveness of the agency. We will provide the individual with written notice of the ban. The notice will contain the following information:
(a)
(b)
(c)
1. The individual may use the online services available through our Web site at
2. The notice will include the contact information for the individual's local office. The individual may call the local office and ask to speak with the office manager or a supervisor;
3. The individual may call our national toll-free number at 1-800-772-1213 between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. The individual should not try to schedule an in-person appointment through this number. If the individual is deaf or hard of hearing, he or she may call our toll-free TTY number at 1-800-325-0778;
4. The individual may write to the local office. An individual restricted from receiving in-person services from our personnel should address all correspondence to the attention of the office manager; or
5. With the written consent of the banned individual, another person may call, write, or visit us on his or her behalf.
(d)
(e)
We will post this regulation in a conspicuous place in our offices that serve the public.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this final rule, we invite your comments on how to make rules easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rule easier to understand, e.g. grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing?
We will start to use this interim final rule on the date shown under the “Effective Date” section earlier in this preamble. However, we are also inviting public comments on the changes made by this rule. We will consider any relevant comments we receive, plan to publish another final rules document to respond to any such comments we receive, and will make any changes to the rules as appropriate based on the comments.
We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when developing regulations.
As we noted above, the number of reported threats to our personnel and property has risen dramatically in recent years. In light of this increase, we believe we must take immediate action to implement this final rule as quickly as possible. The changes we are making in this final rule will increase our ability to protect our claimants, personnel, and other visitors to our offices, while at the same time fulfilling our mission to serve the American people. Accordingly, we find that prior public comment would be contrary to the public interest. However, we are inviting public comment on this final rule and will consider any substantive comments we receive within 60 days of the publication of this final rule.
In addition, for the reasons cited above, we also find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this rule provided for in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Accordingly, we are making this interim final rule effective upon publication.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this interim final rule met the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB reviewed the final rule.
We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
This rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend part 422 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
Sec. 702(a)(4)-(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(4)-(5)).
The regulations in this subpart describe the process we will follow when we decide whether to ban you from entering our offices. Due to increasing reports of threats to our personnel and the public, we are taking steps to increase the level of protection we provide to our personnel and to the public. The purpose of this subpart is to inform the public and our personnel of
We will construe the term “personnel” broadly to mean persons responsible for or engaged in carrying out the responsibilities, programs, or services of or on behalf of the agency. Personnel includes, but is not limited to, our employees, contractors, consultants, and examiners and State disability determination services (DDS) employees, contractors, consultants, and examiners.
We will ban you from entering our offices if you:
(a) Physically or verbally assault our personnel or a member of the public in our occupied space;
(b) Use force or threats of force against our personnel or offices, including but not limited to communicating threats in person or by phone, facsimile, mail, or electronic mail;
(c) Engage in disruptive conduct that impedes our personnel from performing their duties; or
(d) Engage in disruptive conduct that impedes members of the public from obtaining services from our personnel.
If an agency manager makes a decision in writing that you pose a threat to the safety of our personnel, visitors, office, or the operational effectiveness of the agency, we will send you a notice banning you from our offices. The notice will contain the following information:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) You may use the online services available through our Web site at
(2) You may call your local office. Your notice will include the contact information for your local office. You should ask to speak with the office manager or a supervisor;
(3) You may call our national toll-free number at 1-800-772-1213 between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. You should not attempt to schedule an in-person appointment through this number. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call our toll-free TTY number at 1-800-325-0778;
(4) You may write to your local office. You should address all correspondence to the attention of the office manager;
(5) With your written consent, another person may call, write, or visit us to conduct business on your behalf.
(d)
(e)
You may appeal our decision to ban you. You must submit your appeal in writing to the address identified in the notice within 60 days of the date of the notice. You should identify your name, address, Social Security number, and the office that issued the notice of the ban. The appeal should clearly state why we should reconsider our decision and provide any supporting documentation. We may allow an additional 10 days for the late filing of an appeal if you show good cause for the late filing. The ban will remain in effect while the appeal is pending. We will notify you of our decision in writing.
You may request review of our ban decision every three years. The three-year cycle to request review will begin on the date we issued notice of the ban, or if you appealed, the date of our appeal decision. You must submit your request for review of a ban decision in writing to the address identified in the original notice of the ban. Your request for review should identify your name, address, Social Security number, and office that issued the notice of the ban. Your request should clearly state why we should lift the ban and provide relevant documentation that supports removal of the restriction, including medical documentation, applicable psychiatric evaluations, work history, and any criminal record. You must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning that it is more likely than not) that you no longer pose a threat to the safety of our personnel or visitors or the operational effectiveness of the agency. We will notify you of our decision in writing.
We will post the regulation in this subpart in a conspicuous place in our offices that serve the public.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the Myrtle Beach Triathlon. The Myrtle Beach Triathlon, which is comprised of a series of triathlon races, is scheduled to take place on Saturday, October 8, 2011 and Sunday, October 9, 2011. This temporary safety zone is necessary for the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the swim portions of the triathlon races. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on October 8, 2011 through 11:59 a.m. on October 9, 2011.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as
If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or e-mail Ensign John R. Santorum, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, e-mail
On June 28, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Myrtle Beach Triathlon, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Myrtle Beach, SC in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of race participants, participant vessels, spectators and the general public during the swim portion of the triathlon races.
The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule, and no changes were made to the regulatory text.
On October 8 and 9, 2011, the Myrtle Beach Triathlon will be held in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This event will be comprised of a series of triathlon races. Approximately 2,500 individuals are scheduled to compete in the event. The rule establishes a temporary safety zone around the swim area of the Myrtle Beach Triathlon on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The temporary safety zone will be enforced daily from 6 a.m. until 11:59 a.m. on October 8, 2011 through October 9, 2011. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston via telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of 12 hours; (2) the safety zone will encompass only a small portion of the navigable waterway; (3) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the safety zone from 6 a.m. on October 8, 2011 through 11:59 a.m. on October 9, 2011. For the reasons discussed in the Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced for a total of 12 hours. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The revision establishes the addition of nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on October 3, 2011.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0856. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Sharon McCauley, (215) 814-3376, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On May 23, 2011 (76 FR 29686), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of including NO
This approval establishes NO
Previously, EPA had issued a “limited approval” of Virginia's PSD regulations (9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8) for reasons that will not deny this action as being fully approved. The “limited approval” issues can be found in the Technical Support Document contained in this Docket or in the
Our review of Virginia's SIP revision request indicates that our approval of this SIP revision is warranted. These changes to the Virginia program are found in the Virginia Code at 9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8, Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas. EPA is approving NO
This SIP approval for 9VAC5-80-1615 and 9VAC5-80-1695 addresses regulatory changes needed to be equivalent to the CAA's part C PSD permit program. It also corrects deficiencies identified by EPA in the March 27, 2008
We are fully approving these regulatory citation changes which became effective in Virginia on December 31, 2008, as referenced here in this document and in the Virginia Code of Regulations 9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8, sections 5-80-1615 and 5-80-1695 which establish NO
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
Other specific requirements of NO
EPA is approving the addition of NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 1, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2953.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001
In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing a final rule to comply with a court order that removed regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona. On July 9, 2007, we published a final rule to remove bald eagles in the lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List) due to recovery. However, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, by order dated March 6, 2008, enjoined the Service from removing the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona from the threatened species list under the Act pending the Service's status review and 12-month finding on a petition to classify the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona as a distinct population segment (DPS), list this DPS as endangered, and designate critical habitat. On May 1, 2008, to conform to the court's order, we published a final rule listing the potential Sonoran Desert bald eagle DPS as threatened under the Act. On February 25, 2010, the Service published its 12-month finding determining that the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona did not qualify as a DPS and were, therefore, not a listable entity under the Act. On September 30, 2010, as a result of the Service's completed status review and publication of the 12-month finding, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona lifted the injunction. We are issuing this final rule to amend the regulations for the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona from the list. This action amends the CFR to reflect the September 30, 2010, court order.
This rule amending the CFR to reflect the September 30, 2010, court order is effective September 2, 2011. However, the court order reinstating the provisions of the delisting rule for the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 30, 2010.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone, 602-242-0210; facsimile, 602-242-2513. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8337 for TTY.
Bald eagles
On July 6, 1999, we published a proposed rule to delist the bald eagle throughout the lower 48 States due to recovery (64 FR 36454). On February 16, 2006, we reopened the public comment period to consider new information received on our July 6, 1999 (71 FR 8238), proposed rule to delist the bald eagle in the lower 48 States. On October 6, 2004, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Maricopa Audubon Society, and the Arizona Audubon Council requesting that the “Southwestern desert nesting bald eagle population” be classified as a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act, that this DPS be reclassified from a threatened species to an endangered species, and that we concurrently designate critical habitat for the DPS under the Act. We announced in our 90-day finding on August 30, 2006 (71 FR 51549), that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.
On January 5, 2007, the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona did not qualify as a DPS, and further challenging the Service's 90-day finding that the population should not be uplisted to endangered status.
On July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37346), we published the final delisting rule for bald eagles in the lower 48 States due to recovery. This final delisting rule also included the bald eagles located in the Sonoran Desert. On August 17, 2007, the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, requesting the court to make a decision on their January 5, 2007, lawsuit. In early 2008, several Native American Tribes submitted
On March 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona made a final decision in the case and ruled in favor of the CBD and the Maricopa Audubon Society. The court order (
On May 1, 2008, to conform with the court's March 6, 2008, order, we published a final rule listing the potential Sonoran Desert bald eagle DPS as threatened under the Act (73 FR 23966). On May 20, 2008, we published a
On February 25, 2010, the Service published its 12-month finding on the petition to designate the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona as a DPS, list it as endangered, and designate critical habitat under the Act (75 FR 8601). The Service found that the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona did not qualify as a DPS and, therefore, were not a listable entity under the Act. Concurrent with publication of our 12-month finding, the Service filed a motion for dissolution of the court's injunction. By order dated September 30, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona dissolved the injunction. This had the effect of reinstating the provisions of the delisting rule for the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona, thereby removing the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. (
We notified all affected Tribes and State and Federal partners of the ruling and its impact shortly after the order was released. We published a statement on our Web site to notify the public of the ruling and its impact shortly after the order was released and provided additional information in a questions-and-answers document. We continued to meet with Tribes after the finding was published to further discuss their concerns.
This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the September 30, 2010, court order. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Director has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Because the court order had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 30, 2010, the Director has further determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that the agency has good cause to make this rule effective immediately upon publication.
We are issuing this rule to amend the regulations for the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 by removing the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona from the list. However, as previously mentioned, the court order reinstating the provisions of the delisting rule for the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona had legal effect immediately upon its filing on September 30, 2010.
All bald eagles will continue to be protected under the BGEPA and MBTA. The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) was passed in 1940, specifically protecting bald eagles in the United States. A 1962 amendment to this Act included the golden eagle in this protection, and the amended statute became known as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The golden eagle was given protected status because of population declines, value to agriculture in the control of rodents, and to afford greater protections to bald eagles because of the similarity of appearance to juvenile bald eagles. This law prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, or offering to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import of any bald eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a)). “Take” includes “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb” (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3).
The MBTA makes it unlawful to at any time, by any means or in any manner, pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof (16 U.S.C. 703(a)).
We recommend that persons use our
In addition to the protective provisions provided by the BGEPA and MBTA, the
This rule will not affect the status of the bald eagles nesting in the Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona under State laws or suspend any other legal protections provided by State law. This rule will not affect the bald eagle's Appendix II status under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Driscoll, J.T., K.V. Jacobson, G.L. Beatty, J.S. Canaca, and J.G. Koloszar, 2006. Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald Eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Technical Report 173. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, in order to comply with the court orders discussed above, we
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations that were published on May 11, 2011. That final rule established the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. This action provides nine corrections to the regulations, all of which are either mis-designated paragraphs, transposed numbers, removal of text that was mistakenly left in, or addition of text that was mistakenly left out.
Effective September 2, 2011.
Gretchen Hanshew (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6147; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail:
On May 11, 2011, NMFS published a final rule (76 FR 27508) to establish the 2011-2012 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the EEZ off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. NMFS accepted public comment on the proposed rule and responded to these comments in the preamble to the final rule. Those final regulations revised portions of 50 CFR 660, Subparts C through G, and are the subject of this correcting amendment. These regulations affect persons operating fisheries for groundfish species off the U.S. West Coast. As published, the final regulations contain errors that may mislead the public and need to be corrected. Additionally, there are differences between the text of the final rule and current codified regulations that resulted from incorrect amendatory instructions in the final rule. This action implements a total of nine corrections to the regulations, all of which are either mis-numbered paragraphs, transposed numbers, removal of text that was mistakenly left in, or addition of text that was mistakenly left out.
This action makes four corrections to coordinates in § 660.72, § 660.73, and § 660.74. The coordinates are expressed in degrees latitude and longitude, and define large-scale boundaries utilized in management of the groundfish fishery. These sections contain lists of coordinates, expressed in degrees latitude and longitude, which define large-scale boundaries for Rockfish Conservation Areas off the Pacific coast. The first correction is to reinstate paragraphs § 660.72(f)(143)-(145), which were mistakenly removed in the final rule as a result of incorrect amendatory language. Because of this mistake, these paragraphs in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) were “reserved” instead of being redesignated. This correction will establish the appropriate coordinates in those paragraphs that are currently “reserved.” Additionally, corrections are needed to § 660.72(j) and § 660.73(d), where incorrect and transposed coordinate numbers were listed in the final rule and need to be corrected to define the intended boundary lines. Finally, a correction is needed to § 660.74(g) to publish the coordinates in the correct order. The coordinates that published in the final rule were the correct numbers, but were listed in the wrong order. All the corrections made by this rule do not change the intent or application of the geographic area described in the proposed and final rule.
This action also makes five corrections to § 660.360, which provides the regulations for the recreational fisheries in Washington and California. This rule makes no corrections to the regulations for the recreational fisheries in Oregon. Four of these five changes reinstate regulatory language that was published in the final rule (76 FR 27508). The amendatory instructions as published in the proposed rule (75 FR 67810) were correct and would have amended the codified regulations as intended. However, due to an administrative error, the final rule contained the incorrect amendatory instructions resulting in the final rule either making changes that were incorrect or omitting changes to the codified regulations. This final rule corrects these errors. One correction revises § 660.360(c)(1)(iv), which was correctly redesignated in the final rule but was not appropriately revised due to missing amendatory instructions; the correct text published in the final rule on page 27560. Another correction is to § 660.360(c)(3)(ii)(B), this paragraph was not revised in the codified regulations. The correct text was published in the final rule on page 27562. Finally, text at § 660.360(c)(3)(iii)(A)(
Another correction is to § 660.360(c)(3)(i)(A)(
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this
For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If this rule is not implemented immediately, the public will have incorrect information regarding the boundaries used to manage the groundfish fishery and incorrect information about recreational regulations off the coasts of Washington and California, which will cause confusion and would be inconsistent with the final rule.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian fisheries.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended by making the following correcting amendments:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(f) * * *
(143) 36°10.42′ N. lat., 121°42.90′ W. long.;
(144) 36°02.55′ N. lat., 121°36.35′ W. long.;
(145) 36°01.09′ N. lat., 121°36.41′ W. long.;
(j) * * *
(17) 48°10.00′ N. lat., 124°57.54′ W. long;
(d) * * *
(136) 43°55.73′ N. lat., 124°55.41′ W. long.;
(137) 43°54.74′ N. lat., 124°53.15′ W. long.;
(g) * * *
(137) 40°16.94′ N. lat., 124°32.00′ W. long.;
(138) 40°17.58′ N. lat., 124°45.30′ W. long.;
(139) 40°14.40′ N. lat., 124°35.82′ W. long.;
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv)
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(ii) * * *
(B)
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final specifications.
In this rule, NMFS specifies a quota of 325,000 lb of Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands for the 2011-12 fishing year, based on an annual catch limit of 346,000 lb. The expected impact of this action is long-term sustainability of Hawaii bottomfish.
The final specifications are effective October 3, 2011.
Copies of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaiian Archipelago and associated Environmental Impact Statement are available from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or
Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable Fisheries, 808-944-2108.
On August 3, 2011, NMFS published proposed specifications that are finalized here, and a request for public comments (76 FR 46719). Additional background information on this action is found in the preamble to the proposed specifications, and is not repeated here.
Through this action, NMFS is specifying a quota (annual catch target, ACT) of 325,000 lb (147,418 kg) for Deep 7 bottomfish in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) for the 2011-12 fishing year, based on an annual catch limit (ACL) of 346,000 lb (156,943 kg). The MHI Management Subarea is the portion of U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the Hawaiian Archipelago lying to the east of 161°20′ W. longitude. The Deep 7 bottomfish are onaga (
The MHI bottomfish fishery reopens on September 1, 2011. NMFS will monitor the fishery, and if the quota is projected to be reached before August 31, 2012, NMFS will close the non-commercial and commercial fisheries for Deep 7 bottomfish in Federal waters through August 31, 2012. During a fishery closure for Deep 7 bottomfish, no person may fish for, possess, or sell any of these fish in the MHI, except as otherwise authorized by law. Specifically, fishing for, and the resultant possession or sale of, Deep 7 bottomfish by vessels legally registered to Pacific Remote Island Areas bottomfish fishing permits, and conducted in compliance with all laws and regulations, are not affected by the closure. There is no prohibition on fishing for or selling other non-Deep 7 bottomfish species throughout the year. All other management measures continue to apply in the MHI bottomfish fishery.
The comment period for the proposed specifications ended on August 18, 2011. NMFS received no comments, and so is adapting the specifications unchanged from the proposal.
There are no changes in the final specifications.
The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action is necessary for the conservation and management of MHI bottomfish, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed specification stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed specifications and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required, and none was prepared.
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for vessels participating in the rockfish entry level fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2011 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated to vessels participating in the rockfish entry level fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 1, 2011, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2011.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7269.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2011 TACs allocated to vessels participating in the entry level rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska are: 494 metric tons (mt) for Pacific ocean perch, 109 mt for northern rockfish, and 148 mt for pelagic shelf rockfish as established by the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications (76 FR 11111, March 1, 2011) for groundfish in the GOA. Section 679.83(a)(2) allows trawl or longline gear vessels participating in the entry level rockfish fishery to harvest any unused northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish after 1200 hrs, A.l.t., September 1, 2011.
As of September 1, 2011, 54 mt for Pacific ocean perch, 109 mt for northern rockfish, and 135 mt for pelagic shelf rockfish remain in the total entry level allocated TACs. In accordance with § 679.83(a)(3), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the remaining 2011 TAC of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish allocated to vessels participating in the entry level longline rockfish fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is insufficient to support directed fishing. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for trawl and longline vessels participating in the rockfish entry level fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) and § 679.81(h)(5) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of northern rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, and pelagic shelf rockfish for vessels participating in the rockfish entry level fishery in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 29, 2011.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”).
Proposed rule with request for public comments.
The Board is issuing a proposed rule to implement section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), which permits nonbank companies that own at least one registered securities broker or dealer, and that are required by a foreign regulator or provision of foreign law to be subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, to register with the Board and subject themselves to supervision by the Board. The proposed rule outlines the requirements that a securities holding company must satisfy to make an effective election, including filing the appropriate form with the responsible Reserve Bank, providing all additional required information, and satisfying the statutory waiting period of 45 days or such shorter period the Board determines appropriate.
Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1430 and RIN No. 7100-AD 81, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Amanda K. Allexon, Senior Counsel (202) 452-3818, or Bao Nguyen, Attorney, (202) 736-5599, Legal Division; or Michael J. Sexton, Assistant Director, (202) 452-3009, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. Users of Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TTD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.
Section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Act permits a company that owns at least one registered securities broker or dealer (a “nonbank securities company”), and that is required by a foreign regulator or provision of foreign law to be subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision, to register with the Board as a securities holding company and become subject to supervision and regulation by the Board.
Under section 618 of the Act, a securities holding company that elects to be subject to supervision by the Board must submit a registration form that includes all such information and documents the Board, by regulation, deems necessary or appropriate. The statute also specifies that registration as a supervised securities holding company becomes effective 45 days after the date the Board receives all required information, or within such shorter period as the Board, by rule or order, may determine.
Section 618 makes a registered securities holding company subject to all of the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
This proposed rulemaking would permit securities holding companies to elect to become supervised securities holding companies by registering with the Board. The proposed rule outlines the requirements that a securities holding company must satisfy to make an effective registration, including filing the appropriate form with the responsible Reserve Bank, providing all additional information requested by the Board, and satisfying the statutory waiting period of 45 days or such shorter period the Board determines appropriate. The Board is seeking
Section 241.1 of the proposed rule outlines the authority under which the Board is issuing the proposed rule. Section 241.2 of the proposed rule incorporates the statutory language in section 618 defining a “securities holding company” to mean any company that directly or indirectly owns or controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, one or more brokers or dealers registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The term does not include, among other things, a company that is a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board, a bank holding company, a savings and loan holding company, an insured bank, a savings association, or a foreign banking organization with U.S. banking operations. Under the proposal, terms such as “affiliate,” “bank,” “bank holding company,” “control,” and “subsidiary” are defined to have the same meaning as in section 225.2 of the Board's Regulation Y.
Section 241.3 of the proposed rule requires a securities holding company that elects to register to become a supervised securities holding company to file the proper form with the responsible Reserve Bank. As discussed further in section IV below, the Board is proposing to create a new form for this purpose. The proposed form, which is similar to the Board's current form Y-3F, used by a company registering to become a bank holding company, would include a number of questions relating to the organizational structure of the securities holding company, its capital structure, and its financial condition. Specifically, the proposed form would require a securities holding company electing to be supervised to submit:
1. An organization chart for the securities holding company showing all subsidiaries.
2. The name, asset size, general activities, place of incorporation, and ownership share held by the securities holding company for each of the securities holding company's direct and indirect subsidiaries that comprise 1 percent or more of the securities holding company's worldwide consolidated assets.
3. A list of all persons (natural as well as legal) in the upstream chain of ownership of the securities holding company who, directly or indirectly, own 5 percent or more of the voting shares of the securities holding company. In addition, the Board would request information concerning any voting agreements or other mechanisms that exist among shareholders for the exercise of control over the securities holding company.
4. For the senior officers and directors with decision-making authority for the securities holding company, the biographical information requested in the Interagency Biographical and Financial Report FR 2081c (the Financial Report need not be provided).
5. Copies of the most recent quarterly and annual reports prepared for shareholders, if any, for the securities holding company and certain subsidiaries.
6. Income statements, balance sheets, and audited GAAP statements, as well as any other financial statements submitted to the securities holding company's current consolidated supervisor, if any, each on a parent-only and consolidated basis, showing separately each principal source of revenue and expense, through the end of the most recent fiscal quarter and for the past two (2) fiscal years.
7. A description of the methods used by the securities holding company to monitor and control its operations, including those of its domestic and foreign subsidiaries and offices (e.g., through internal reports and internal audits).
8. A description of the bank regulatory system that exists in the home country of any of the securities holding company's foreign bank subsidiaries. The description also should include a discussion of each of the following:
a. The scope and frequency of on-site examinations by the home country supervisor;
b. Off-site monitoring by the home country supervisor;
c. The role of external auditors;
d. Transactions with affiliates;
e. Other applicable prudential requirements;
f. Remedial authority of the home country supervisor;
g. Prior approval requirements; and,
h. Any applicable regulatory capital framework.
9. A description of any other regulatory capital framework to which the securities holding company is subject.
Under the proposed rule, the registration is considered filed when all information required by the Board is received. Section 241.3 of the proposed rule also states that a registration filed by a securities holding company becomes effective and supervision by the Board begins on the 45th calendar day after the date that a complete filing is received. Under the proposed rule, the Board also reserves the right to shorten the 45-day waiting period and begin consolidated supervision at such earlier date as the Board specifies to the securities holding company in writing.
The proposed rule provides that, upon an effective registration, a supervised securities holding company would be supervised and regulated as if it were a bank holding company, and that the nonbanking restrictions contained in section 4 of the BHC Act will not apply to a supervised securities holding company. This treatment will generally mean that supervised securities holding companies will, among other things, be required to submit the same reports and be subject to the same examination procedures, supervisory guidance, and capital standards that currently apply to bank holding companies. However, the Board anticipates that there will be a period of time before the Board becomes fully acquainted with supervised securities holding companies (and their operations) because they are a new class of entities the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Board to supervise. As a result, the proposed rule provides the Board with flexibility to supervise and regulate supervised securities holding companies in a manner that is consistent with safety and soundness and that addresses the risks they pose to financial stability.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Board invites comment on how to make the proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
• Is the material organized in a clear, understandable, and complete way? If not, how can the rule be presented more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would achieve that?
• Is the section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?
• What other changes can the Board incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• The Annual Report of Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-6),
• The Report of Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7),
• The Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9C),
• The Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9LP),
• The Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9SP),
• The Financial Statements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9ES),
• The Supplement to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9CS),
• The Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-11 and FR Y-11S),
• The Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations (FR 2314 and FR 2314S),
• The Bank Holding Company Report of Insured Depository Institutions' Section 23A Transactions with Affiliates (FR Y-8),
• The Consolidated Bank Holding Company Report of Equity Investments in Nonfinancial Companies (FR Y-12) and the Annual Report of Merchant Banking Investments Held for an Extended Period (FR Y-12A), and
• The Capital and Asset Report of Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7Q), and the Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations (FR Y-7N and FR Y-7NS).
Section 241.3(a)(1) would require securities holding companies that elect to register to become supervised securities holding companies to file a registration form with the responsible Reserve Bank. The registration form would ask information on: The organization chart (including all subsidiaries), shareholders, senior officers and directors, methods used to monitor and control its operations, and foreign bank subsidiaries and the bank regulatory system in which these foreign bank subsidiaries operate. Section 241.3(b)(3)(i) would require supervised securities holding companies to be subject to supervision and regulation by the Board as if such companies were bank holding companies. Accordingly, the Federal Reserve would require supervised securities holding companies to file the same reports as bank holding companies as follows: FR Y-6 and FR Y-7 (OMB No. 7100-0297); FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP, FR Y-9SP, FR Y-9ES, and FR Y-9CS (OMB No. 7100-0128); FR Y-11 and FR Y-11S (OMB No. 7100-0244); FR 2314 and FR 2314S (OMB No. 7100-0073); FR Y-8 (OMB No. 7100-0126); FR Y-12 and FR Y-12A (OMB No. 7100-0300); FR Y-7Q, FR Y-7N and FR Y-7NS (OMB No. 7100-0125).
The estimated burden per filing for the registration form in section 241.3(a)(1) is eight hours (one business day). The Board estimates that approximately five securities holding companies would file a request to become a supervised securities holding company. Therefore, the total annual burden for the registration form is estimated to be 40 hours. Effective upon registration, and except as otherwise provided by order of the Board, a supervised securities holding company shall file the existing bank holding company reporting forms listed above on the calendar quarter-end under section 241.3(b)(3)(i). The hourly burden estimates associated with each of these reporting forms is not expected to change materially as the information to be collected is substantively similar to that which is currently being collected from bank holding companies. There is currently only one securities holding company as of June 30, 2011, which would be added to the respondent panel for each report, as appropriate.
For additional information on the current burden associated with any of the existing information collections, please see OMB's public Web site at:
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to Cynthia Ayouch, Acting Federal Reserve Clearance Officer, Division of Research and Statistics, Mail Stop 95-A, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, with copies of such comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (SHC Registration), Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments electronically, identified by Docket number, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board is proposing Regulation OO (12 CFR part 241
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a “small entity” includes those firms within the “Finance and Insurance” sector with asset sizes that vary from $7 million or less in assets to $175 million or less in assets.
As discussed in the Supplementary Information, the proposed rule would apply to any securities holding company that elects to be supervised by the Board regardless of such a company's asset size. However, at this time, only one company, which has assets in excess of $175 million, has expressed interest in electing to become a supervised securities holding company. Moreover, only one company ever elected to be supervised under the investment bank holding company framework administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which like the framework in the proposed rule provided an elective mechanism to enable a nonbank securities company to satisfy requirements by a foreign regulator or provision of foreign law that such company be subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision. Taking these facts into consideration but also allowing for additional flexibility, the Board estimates that approximately five securities holding companies may possibly register to become a Board supervised securities holding company.
In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the proposed rule, if adopted in final form, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities supervised by the Board. Nonetheless, the Board seeks comment on whether the proposed rule would impose undue burdens on, or have unintended consequences for, small organizations, and whether there are ways such potential burdens or consequences could be minimized in a manner consistent with section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Holding companies, Securities, Federal Reserve System, Brokers and dealers, Foreign law, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12 CFR chapter II as follows:
1. Add new part 241 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1850a.
(a)
(b)
Except as defined below, terms used in this part have the same meaning given them in 12 CFR 225.2.
(a)
(2) Does not include a company that is—
(i) A nonbank financial company supervised by the Board pursuant to Title I of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5301
(ii) An insured bank (other than an institution described in subparagraphs (D), (F), or (H) of section 2(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)) or a savings association;
(iii) An affiliate of an insured bank (other than an institution described in subparagraphs (D), (F), or (H) of section 2(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)) or an affiliate of a savings association;
(iv) A foreign bank, foreign company, or company that is described in section 8(a) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106(a));
(v) A foreign bank that controls, directly or indirectly, a corporation chartered under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611
(vi) Subject to comprehensive consolidated supervision by a foreign regulator.
(b)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)(i) Upon an effective registration and except as otherwise provided by order of the Board, a supervised securities holding company shall be treated, and shall be subject to supervision and regulation by the Board, as if it were a bank holding company, or as otherwise appropriate to protect the safety and soundness of the supervised securities holding company and address the risks posed by such company to financial stability.
(ii) The provisions of section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
In proposed rule document 2011-20866 beginning on page 50960 in the issue of Wednesday, August 17, 2011, make the following correction:
On page 50962, in the eleventh line below the column titles at the top of the page, “Unincorporated Areas of Craven County” should read “Unincorporated Areas of Jones County”.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposes to revise the requirements regarding clamp and rotochamber brake actuator readjustment limits in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is to amend the readjustment limits, clarify their application, and correct an error in cross-referencing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). This proposal responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).
Send your comments on or before November 1, 2011.
You may submit comments identified by Docket ID Number FMCSA-2010-0257 by any of the following methods:
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations (MC-PSV), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2010-0257), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments.
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble, available in the docket, go to
Anyone is able to search the electronic form for all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
Appendix G, Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards, was added to the FMCSRs in 1988 (53 FR 49411, Dec. 7, 1988). Under the inspection standards of Appendix G, all items required to be inspected must be in proper adjustment, must not be defective, and must function properly before a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) is placed in service. Appendix G includes, among many other things, brake adjustment (readjustment) limits. Paragraph 1.a.(5) of this appendix currently reads:
Readjustment limits. The maximum stroke at which brakes should be readjusted is given below. Any brake 1/4″ or more past the readjustment limit or any two brakes less than 1/4″ beyond the readjustment limit shall be cause for rejection. Stroke shall be measured with engine off and reservoir pressure of 80 to 90 psi with brakes fully applied.
The figures in the rightmost column of each of the three tables following paragraph 1.a.(5) indicate the maximum stroke at which brakes should be readjusted.
Subsequently, in June 1991, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) developed International Recommended Practice J1817 (SAE J1817) to provide a marking system that distinguishes long-stroke from standard-stroke air brake actuators, rotochambers, and their components. It defines “rated stroke” as the minimum design stroke of a brake actuator.
The 2001 revision of SAE J1817 includes tables listing recommended values for minimum rated stroke and maximum readjustment stroke for clamp band/sealed design standard-stroke brake actuators (Table 1A), clamp band/sealed design long-stroke brake actuators (Table 1B), and rotochamber designs (Table 1C). Table 1B is further broken down to include three classes of long-stroke actuators. The classes are defined according to the range of difference between the maximum readjustment stroke and the standard rated stroke. In most but not all cases, the maximum readjustment stroke is 80 percent of the minimum rated stroke. The differences are greatest for the smaller sizes of brake chambers.
In 1997, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), published in the
As part of that NPRM, FHWA proposed to add a new § 393.47(e) to the FMCSRs to specify the maximum permissible stroke for different types (sizes) of brake chambers and incorporate by reference SAE J1817, Long-Stroke Air-Brake Actuator Marking (June 1991). The NPRM proposed to require that the maximum values for pushrod travel for clamp- and rotochamber-type actuators must be less than 80 percent of the rated strokes listed in SAE J1817, or 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer, or the readjustment limit marked on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer. For types 16 and 20 long-stroke clamp-type brake actuators, the NPRM proposed that the pushrod travel must be less than 51 mm (2 in.), or 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer, or the readjustment limit marked on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer. The NPRM did not propose to revise the Appendix G brake readjustment-limits tables.
FMCSA published the final rule on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48007). The Agency revised § 393.47(e) as proposed, except that it incorporated by reference the July 2001 revision of SAE J1817 rather than the June 1991 edition. The preamble to the final rule did not indicate whether the Agency received comments on the decision to incorporate the July 2001 revision.
On April 16, 2007, CVSA petitioned the Agency to revise § 393.47(e). CVSA stated that, although the readjustment (or brake actuator stroke) limits of SAE J1817 are consistent with those listed in Appendix G and CVSA's North American Standard Out-of-Service (OOS) Criteria, § 393.47(e) “specifies readjustment (stroke) limits based on 80 percent of the rated (full) strokes listed in SAE J1817.” Relying on this criterion introduces discrepancies between § 393.47(e) and SAE J1817. Although the readjustment limits listed in SAE J1817 agree with those in Appendix G and the OOS Criteria, they differ, for some brake chambers, from the “80 percent of rated
CVSA also pointed out that § 393.47(e) considers a brake with the stroke
In addition, CVSA requested that FMCSA revise § 393.53, Automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators, to include references to the FMVSSs applicable to trailers. Sections 393.53(b) and (c) would be revised so that the FMVSS citations read, “49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8 or S5.2.2.”
On June 10, 2008, CVSA amended its April 2007 petition to correct the text of the table subheadings for clamp-type and rotochamber-type chamber data in the original petition and to add tables for Bendix DD-3 and bolt-type brake chamber data. The amended petition changed the table subheadings “Brake Chamber Pushrod Stroke Limit” and “RC Actuate Pushrod Stroke Limit” to read “Brake Adjustment Limit” and “Rotochamber Type Brake Chamber Data,” respectively.
FMCSA has placed copies of CVSA's 2007 petition and 2008 correction in the docket for this rulemaking.
This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act), both of which provide broad discretion to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) in implementing their provisions.
The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary may prescribe requirements for (1) Qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1)], 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 [§ 31502(b)(2)]. The 2005 final rule amending part 393 of the FMCSRs (Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, 70 FR 48007, Aug. 15, 2005) and these proposed amendments are based on the Secretary's authority to regulate the safety and standards of equipment of for-hire and private carriers.
The 1984 Act gives the Secretary concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Codified in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), section 206(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish regulations on commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety. Specifically, the Act sets forth minimum safety standards to ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely [§ 31136(a)(1)]; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely [§ 31136(a)(2)]; (3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely * * * [§ 31136(a)(3)]; and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators [§ 31136(a)(4)].
The proposed rule would provide improved guidance concerning CMV brake adjustment limits. The proposed maximum pushrod travel for brake actuators would enhance the braking performance of the vehicle, consistent with § 31136(a)(1). The rule does not address the responsibilities or physical condition of drivers addressed by § 31136(a)(2) and (3), respectively, and deals with § 31136(a)(4) only to the extent that a safer vehicle is less likely to have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of a driver. Before prescribing any such regulations, however, FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)).
SAE J1817, “Long-Stroke Air-Brake Actuator Marking,” describes a marking system to distinguish long-stroke from standard-stroke air brake actuators, rotochambers, and components. Long-stroke air brake actuators are designed to provide longer pushrod stroke capabilities than standard-stroke actuators. Because some of these chambers are nearly identical in exterior appearance to the standard chambers, a unique marking system is needed for the purpose of identification by mechanics, inspectors, and others in the field. This marking helps ensure that both types of actuators are serviced correctly and brakes are adjusted properly. This is important because long-stroke actuator components from different actuator manufacturers are not interchangeable, nor are they interchangeable with standard actuator components.
In addition to providing discrete marking requirements for differentiating long-stroke from standard-stroke actuators, SAE J1817 includes tables that specify the rated stroke and the maximum readjustment stroke for various types of air brake actuators. Tables 1A and 1B provide data for standard-stroke and long-stroke clamp-type brake chambers, respectively, and Table 1C provides data for rotochamber designs.
Section 393.47(e) of the FMCSRs, as amended in the August 2005 final rule, outlines three options for determining brake actuator readjustment limits for clamp- and rotochamber-type actuators. The pushrod travel for these actuators must be:
(1) Less than 80 percent of the rated stroke listed in Tables 1A, 1B, or 1C of SAE J1817; or
(2) Less than 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the brake chamber by its manufacturer; or
(3) Less than the readjustment limit marked on the chamber by the chamber manufacturer.
As CVSA's petition notes, while § 393.47(e) specifies that readjustment (stroke) limits may be based on 80 percent of the rated (full) strokes listed in SAE J1817, relying on this criterion may introduce discrepancies between § 393.47(e) and SAE J1817. Although in some cases, the readjustment limits listed in SAE J1817 are 80 percent of the rated stroke for a given actuator, deviations exist. Where the readjustment limit listed in SAE J1817 for a given actuator differs from a value equal to 80 percent of the rated stroke, the difference generally is small. In some cases, however, the deviations can be considered more significant (
CVSA recommends incorporation of a set of tables into § 393.47(e)—similar to the tables that already exist in (a) SAE J1817, (b) the CVSA OOS Criteria, and (c) Appendix G to the FMCSRs—that, if included, would eliminate the discrepancies resulting from application of the “80 percent” criterion currently
In reviewing the tables in SAE J1817, FMCSA confirmed that the specified readjustment limits for certain actuators are not equal to 80 percent of the corresponding rated stroke for those actuators.
Even though the discrepancies are minimal, they are confusing to the enforcement community and the industry. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, FMCSA proposes to amend § 393.47(e) as recommended by CVSA.
FMCSA does not, however, agree with CVSA's recommendation to limit out-of-adjustment findings to cases where the brake travel exceeds the readjustment limit. An s-cam brake that is
This NPRM proposes to revise and expand the readjustment-limits tables as recommended by CVSA, and includes these revised tables in § 393.47(e) and Appendix G. The revised tables cover readjustment limits not only for clamp-, bolt-, and rotochamber-type brake chambers but also for Bendix DD-3 chambers. The table for clamp-type brake chambers also differentiates between adjustment limits for more sizes of standard-stroke and long-stroke chambers.
The NPRM also proposes to eliminate the cross-reference to SAE J1817 in § 393.47(e). Inclusion of the new tables in § 393.47(e) would provide explicit readjustment limits for each type of actuator, eliminating the need for the cross-reference.
FMCSA notes that the SAE Truck and Bus Brake Actuator Committee has initiated work on a new SAE Recommended Practice, J2899, which would describe the physical characteristics of air brake actuators that allow the correct brake readjustment limits to be determined. The new recommended practice would also define the maximum readjustment limits based on the rated stroke and type (size) of the chamber. The committee voted to develop this new J-specification to identify maximum readjustment limits independently of SAE J1817 and focus the latter on actuator long-stroke marking requirements. As the committee noted, limiting SAE J1817 to the topic defined within its scope will facilitate maintenance of the standard. This project was initiated in May 2009, and it is not known when the new recommended practice will be published.
The proposed rule would adopt CVSA's suggestion to replace the heading “Maximum stroke at which brakes should be readjusted” with the term “Brake Adjustment Limit.” The proposed wording is more concise and direct.
As discussed in the Agency Analysis section, FMCSA proposes changes to paragraph 1.a.(5) of Appendix G, “Brake System, Service Brakes,” to be consistent with the § 393.47(e) requirement that pushrod travel be less than the values specified in the accompanying tables. For actuator types not listed in these tables, the pushrod stroke must be less than 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer, or less than the readjustment limit marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer.
Lastly, the Agency would revise § 393.53 in response to CVSA's request. Although the introductory text of each paragraph clearly states that it is applicable to “each commercial motor vehicle,” § 393.53(b) and (c) omit a cross-reference to the FMVSSs applicable to trailers (S.5.2.2). The proposed rule adds this cross-reference to eliminate potential confusion.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. FMCSA expects the economic impact of this NPRM to be minimal. The proposal affects the conditions under which motor carriers are cited for out-of-adjustment brakes during roadside inspections and CMVs are placed OOS for such violations. Each brake adjustment violation cited during a roadside inspection must be addressed
From 2000 to 2009, the annual number of Level I and Level V roadside inspections of CMVs—the only inspection levels that include brake stroke measurement—ranged from about 0.94 to 1.25 million, and the percentage of inspections resulting in the CMV being placed OOS for brake violations of all kinds ranged from a high of 17 percent to a low of 12.2 percent. Roughly half of these violations concerned out-of-adjustment brakes, but the Agency believes that the changes in this proposal would have relatively little impact on this ratio. By proposing to: (1) Remove from § 393.47(e) the cross-reference to the readjustment-limits tables in SAE J1817 and the requirement that pushrod travel be less than 80 percent of the rated stroke listed in those tables, (2) incorporate into § 393.47(e) a set of tables (duplicating those in Appendix G) providing explicit readjustment limits, and (3) require that pushrod travel be less than the values specified in those tables, the NPRM would eliminate certain discrepancies between the brake adjustment values derived using the “80 percent of rated stroke” criterion under § 393.47(e) and the values specified in the SAE J1817 tables. In addition, these changes would make § 393.47(e) consistent with Appendix G, eliminating confusion in the enforcement community and the industry.
Although substituting the readjustment-limits tables for the cross-reference to SAE J1817 in § 393.47(e) would resolve discrepancies that the cross-reference introduced, these differences are in many cases quite small. The differences vary according to the type (size) of brake chamber. Using the “80 percent of rated stroke” criterion may produce a value that is either more stringent or less stringent than the value specified in SAE J1817. For these reasons, FMCSA anticipates that certain brake adjustments that comply with the current rule would be out of compliance with the proposed standard—while the reverse could just as often be true. On the other hand, the proposed Appendix G amendment mirroring the proposed § 393.47(e) requirement that pushrod travel be less than the values specified in the readjustment-limits tables would have no effect on the rate of OOS violations for brake adjustment—because roadside inspection procedures do not reference the readjustment limits in Appendix G.
In summary, although FMCSA is unable to estimate the net economic and safety impacts of the changes proposed in this NPRM, these impacts clearly would be minimal.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532
This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined that this rulemaking does not pose an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rulemaking does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. FMCSA analyzed this proposed action in accordance with Executive Order 13132. The proposal would not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this rulemaking would preempt any State law or regulation.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this action.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The Agency determined that no new information collection requirements are associated with this proposed rule.
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this proposal under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Executive Order because it is not economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B, chapter III, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. In § 393.7, remove paragraph (b)(15) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(16) through (b)(22) as paragraphs (b)(15) through (b)(21), respectively.
3. Amend § 393.47 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e)
For actuator types not listed in these tables, the pushrod stroke must be less than 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer, or less than the readjustment limit marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer.
4. Amend § 393.53 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
(b)
(c)
5. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B by revising paragraph (1)(a)(5) to read as follows:
(1) * * *
(a) * * *
(5) Readjustment limits. The maximum pushrod travel or stroke must be less than the values given in the tables below and at § 393.47(e). Any brake
For actuator types not listed in these tables, the pushrod stroke must be less than 80 percent of the rated stroke marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer, or less than the readjustment limit marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have submitted Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 10 proposes actions to revise the lobster species contained within the fishery management unit; revise definitions of management thresholds; establish an acceptable biological catch control (ABC) rule, an annual catch limit (ACL), and an annual catch target (ACT) for Caribbean spiny lobster; revise the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permitting requirements; revise the regulations specifying the condition of spiny lobster landed during a fishing trip; modify the undersized attractant regulations; modify the framework procedures; and transfer to the state of Florida the authority to remove derelict spiny lobster traps within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Florida.
Written comments must be received on or before November 1, 2011.
You may submit comments on the amendment identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0106 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To submit comments through the Federal e-rulemaking portal:
Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not be considered.
Electronic copies of the amendment may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or e-mail:
The spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The 2006 revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act require that in 2011, for FMPs for fisheries determined by the Secretary to not be subject to overfishing, ACLs must be established at a level that prevents overfishing and helps to achieve optimum yield (OY) within a fishery. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from Federally managed stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
The amendment proposes to remove four species from the FMP; revise definitions of management thresholds; establish an ABC control rule, an ACL, and an ACT for Caribbean spiny lobster; revise the requirements for the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit; revise the regulations specifying the condition of lobster landed during a fishing trip; modify the regulations with respect to the use of undersized attractants; modify the framework procedures; and transfer to the state of Florida the authority to remove unclaimed lobster traps within the EEZ off of Florida.
Five species of lobster are currently within the FMP: the Caribbean spiny lobster (
In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was re-authorized and included a number of changes to improve the conservation of managed fishery resources. Included in these changes are requirements that fishery management councils establish both a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery and accountability measures (AMs) to help ensure that ACLs are not exceeded and to mitigate any ACL overages that may occur. Guidance also requires fishery management councils to establish a control rule to determine allowable biological catch (ABC).
The Councils accepted the ABC control rule developed by the Gulf Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which set the ABC for spiny lobster at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). The Councils chose not to set sector allocations and set a stock ACL equal to the ABC. Therefore, the spiny lobster stock ACL is proposed to be set at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). An ACT was set at 90 percent of the ACL, which is 6.59 million lb (2.99 million kg). If the ACT is exceeded in any year, the Councils will convene a scientific panel to review the ACL and ACT, and determine if additional AMs are needed. The ACT is proposed to serve as the AM for the spiny lobster stock. Landings have not exceeded the ACT level since the 2000/2001 fishing year. Therefore, it is unlikely the ACT would be exceeded under the current ACT preferred alternative based on landings history. However, the updated framework procedure contained within this amendment would facilitate timely adjustments of the ACT or ACL of AM if necessary.
Definitions of maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, overfishing, and overfished were set for Caribbean spiny lobster in Amendment 6 to the FMP. Currently, the Councils have different definitions for each reference point. The amendment would set a single definition for each biological reference point that could be used by both Councils and simplify management. The maximum fishing mortality threshold would be set based on the overfishing limit (OFL) recommendation of the SSC of 7.90 million lb (3.58 million kg). The MSY proxy would be set equal to the OFL. The minimum stock size threshold, which is the overfished definition, would be equal to (1−M) × B
Spiny Lobster Amendment 1 (July 15, 1987, 52 FR 22659) initially implemented the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit. The original intent of the Councils was to confine holders of this permit to the commercial sector. However, the current requirements for obtaining the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit do not restrict the permit to commercial fishermen, which is contrary to the original intent. Amendment 10 proposes to require applicants for a Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit to possess either (1) a Federal spiny lobster permit or (2) a valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid Crawfish Endorsement associated with a valid Florida Saltwater Products License to obtain a tailing permit.
Under certain situations and with possession of a valid Federal tail-separation permit, Caribbean spiny lobster tails may be separated from the body onboard a fishing vessel. This tail-separation provision can create difficulties for law enforcement personnel in determining if the lobster were originally of legal size, especially when some lobster of the same catch are whole and some are tailed. Amendment 10 proposes to require lobster be landed all whole or all tailed during a single fishing trip.
Federal regulations allow as many as 50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum size limit or one per trap, whichever is greater, to be retained aboard a vessel to attract other lobsters for harvest. Currently, Federal regulations are not consistent with Florida regulations, which allow the retention of as many as 50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum size limit and one per trap. Amendment 10 proposes to change the Federal regulations specific to the use of undersized attractants to be consistent with current Florida regulations. Additionally, although approximately 10 percent mortality is associated with the use of undersized attractants, traps using non-lobster bait or no bait at all take up to two to three times longer to harvest the same amount of lobsters as traps that use undersized attractants. The resulting increase in effort may increase the bycatch and bycatch mortality of other species. Therefore, the use of undersized attractants that are consistent with Florida regulations provides both enforcement and biological benefits.
To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other management measures, the Councils have added the ability to adjust ACLs and AMs, and establish and adjust target catch levels, including ACTs, to the current framework procedures. These adjustments or additions may be accomplished through a regulatory amendment which is less time intensive than an FMP amendment. By including ACLs, AMs, and ACTs in the framework procedure for specifying total allowable catch, the Councils and NMFS would have the flexibility to expeditiously alter those harvest parameters as new scientific information becomes available. The proposed addition of other management options into the framework procedures would also add flexibility and the ability to more timely respond to certain future Council decisions through the framework procedures.
On August 27, 2009, an Endangered Species Act (ESA) biological opinion evaluating the impacts of the continued authorization of the spiny lobster fishery on ESA-listed species was completed. The opinion contained specific terms and conditions required to implement the prescribed reasonable and prudent measures, including allowing the public to remove trap-related marine debris in EEZ off Florida. Amendment 10 proposes to delegate authority to Florida to clean up derelict traps in Federal waters off Florida. Florida currently has a trap cleanup program that includes provisions for public participation.
Currently, no allocations are set between the commercial and recreational sectors for spiny lobster. The Councils considered setting such allocations, but instead chose to not sector allocations and therefore allow for a stock ACL, stock ACT, and AM that affects both sectors.
The Councils considered alternatives to meet requirements from the 2009 biological opinion to establish lobster closed areas and lobster gear trap line marking requirements to protect threatened and endangered species; however, they chose to take no action at this time to allow time for additional stakeholder input. The Councils intend to develop Amendment 11 to the Spiny Lobster FMP to implement these measures prior to the beginning of the next spiny lobster commercial fishing season that begins on August 6, 2012.
A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 10 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 10 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the
The Councils submitted Amendment 10 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 10 will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability.
Public comments received by 5 p.m. eastern time, on November 1, 2011, will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision regarding Amendment 10.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given of public meetings of four committees of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). Each committee will meet to discuss recommendations for consideration by the full Conference. Complete details regarding each committee's meeting, related research reports, how to attend (including information about remote access and obtaining special accommodations for persons with disabilities), and how to submit comments to the committee can be found in the “Research” section of the ACUS Web site. Go to
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
The meetings will be held at 1120 20th Street, NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036.
The Designated Federal Officer for the individual committee (see listings below), ACUS, 1120 20th Street, NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080.
The Committee on Administration and Management will meet to consider issues arising when agencies use “incorporation by reference” in regulations; i.e., when an agency regulation incorporates by reference material available elsewhere. Among other things, the committee will discuss procedural and drafting issues that arise when agencies use incorporation by reference, challenges agencies face in updating such references, and ways to ensure the reasonable availability of incorporated materials, which may be subject to copyright.
The Committee on Collaborative Governance will meet to consider two projects. The committee will consider recommending potential improvements to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the implementation of the Act. Potential issues for discussion include the chartering requirements for advisory committees; improving access to committee meetings and materials; virtual, asynchronous committee meetings; and other improvements that might reduce the burdens imposed by FACA or improve the transparency of FACA committees.
The Committee on Collaborative Governance will also discuss a project regarding the use of third-party certification in government inspections.
The Committee on Judicial Review will meet to consider two projects. First, it will discuss potential changes to 28 U.S.C. 1500, which regulates the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims (CFC). The statute currently deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has a claim based on the same facts pending in another court. The committee will consider whether this statute creates a trap for unwary litigants and whether it should be repealed or revised.
The committee will also consider recommending improvements to the Congressional Review Act. The committee will discuss whether better procedures could be implemented to assist Congress in identifying regulations that should be reviewed under the Act and in conducting such review.
The Committee on Regulation will meet to consider a project concerning international regulatory cooperation. This project will examine how the Conference might update its Recommendation 91-1, “Federal Agency Cooperation with Foreign Government Regulators,” in light of developments in United States government structure, trade agreements, and technology since the recommendation was adopted 20 years ago.
The committee will also discuss a project relating to the Government in the Sunshine Act. This project is designed to determine whether the Act inhibits deliberation at multi-member agencies, and whether the Act might be improved in a way that promotes better deliberation while still serving the openness goals of the Act.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA, Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to issue an easement to El Dorado
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by October 3, 2011. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in December 2011 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in April 2012.
Send written comments to Eldorado National Forest Supervisor, Kathryn D. Hardy, and 100 Forni Road, Placerville, CA, 95667. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
Laura Hierholzer, Project Leader, 100 Forni Road, Placerville, CA, 95667, 530-642-5187.
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 Time, Monday through Friday.
The Rubicon Trail crosses National Forest System lands on the Pacific Ranger District of the Eldorado National Forest. The original route was a Native American trail connecting the Sacramento Valley and Lake Tahoe. By the 1890's the trail developed into a road, by the standards of the day, to provide motorized access to Rubicon Springs, Wentworth Springs and Georgetown. The Rubicon Trail is now recognized internationally as the premier OHV route in the United States and is referenced as the “crown jewel of all off highway trails.”
Pursuant to Federal Revised Statute 2477, El Dorado County has asserted a right-of-way over federal land through an 1887 declaration; this right-of-way is known as the Rubicon Trail. In its adoption of Resolution 142-89 on May 30, 1989, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors reaffirmed the August 3, 1887 declaration, and declared that the Rubicon Trail is a non-maintained public road in El Dorado County. A legal easement for the Rubicon Trail has not been recorded except for the portion from the Loon Lake Dam to near Ellis Creek (known as the Ellis Creek Intertie). Other than the Ellis Intertie, the exact location and width of the Rubicon Trail has not been fully defined.
The Rubicon Trail is open to OHV use throught the year. The highest OHV use is during weekends and holidays between Memorial Day and Labor Day: however, OHV users also drive the trail when it is covered by snow and at times when saturated soil conditions exist during spring snowmelt and fall rains. Although OHV user groups hold workdays to maintain the trail and El Dorado County has completed maintenance of a portion of the trail; segments of the trail are severly eroded, allowing runoff from rainfall and snowmelt events to discharge sediment to adjacent streams. The trail has become incised due to the heavy use, and water from rainfall and snowmelt events is intercepted by the incised trail and transported, along with sediment, to stream crossings. Water also collects in large puddles and depressions in many locations along the trail. OHVs are driven through these low spots thereby accelerating trail erosion and sedimentation.
In July 2004, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors issued a state of local emergency due to the significant amount of human fecal waste littered around the Spider Lake area. The amount of fecal waste was determined to pose a health and safety threat to users of the trail and to streams and lakes that are tributary to the Rubicon River and the Middle Fork American River. At the same time the Eldorado National Forest Supervisor issued a Forest Order closing the National Forest System lands around Spdier Lake. As a result, the Spider Lake area was closed to camping and all human access. Currently, restroom facilities exist at each trailhead and Ellis Creek, but there are no public sanitation facilities along the Rubicon Trail at Spider Lake or Buck Island Reservoir primitive camping areas. Once in the backcountry, trail users must rely on individual human waste disposal methods.
The purpose of this project is to:
• Clearly define the responsible party for operations and maintenance of the Rubicon Trail,
• reduce sediment delivery to Ellis Creek,
• reduce runoff from the Rubicon Trail that has the potential to discharge sediment and other waste into waters of the state, and
• address human waste management on the Rubicon Trail.
The proposed action is to issue an easement to El Dorado County for the operation and maintenance of the Rubicon Trail where it crosses National Forest System lands. Both the Ellis Creek and Buck Island bridges would be constructed as well as the FOTR bridge would be replaced. The features (BMPs) as described in the Saturated Soil Water Quality Protection Plan would be constructed from Little Sluice to the County line. Unauthorized routes would be rehabilitated and closed as well as other unauthorized routes would be added to the NFTS for access for dispersed recreation. One vault toilet would be installed.
Kathryn D. Hardy, Forest Supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest will be the Responsible Official for the project.
The decision to be made is whether to adopt and implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or take no action to issue an easement to El Dorado County.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Eleven Point Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Winona Missouri. 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 review proposed forest management projects so that recommendations may be made to the Forest Service on which should be funded through Title II of the Act mentioned above.
The meeting will be held September 20, 2011, 6:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Twin Pines Conservation Education Center located on U.S. Highway 60, Rt 1, Box 1998, Winona, MO. 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 Mark Twain National Forest Supervisors Office, 401 Fairgrounds Road, Rolla, MO. Please call ahead to 573-341-7404 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments.
Richard Hall, Eleven Point Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, Mark Twain National Forest, 573-341-7404,
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. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed for further information.
The following business will be conducted: Two projects from Douglas County will be evaluated. The full agenda may be viewed at
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).
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 6625, 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 Nicholas Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection
Because of both the monetary costs associated with turnover and the potential impact on data quality, the retention of trained field interviewing staff is a major concern for the Census Bureau. In a continuous effort to devise policies and practices aimed at reducing turnover among interviewers, the Census Bureau collects data on the reasons interviewers voluntarily quit their jobs with the Census Bureau. The BC-1294, Field Representative Exit Questionnaire, is the instrument used to collect this data from a sample of former current survey interviewers.
The BC-1294 asks questions about the factors that affected an interviewer's decision to voluntarily leave Census Bureau employment. The goal or purpose of the exit questionnaire is to identify the reasons for interviewer turnover and determine what the Census Bureau might have done, or can do, to influence interviewers not to leave their jobs. The exit questionnaire seeks reasons interviewers quit, inquires about motivational factors that would have kept the interviewers from leaving, identifies training program strengths and areas for improvement, and explores the impact of automation and the influence of pay and other working conditions on turnover.
As the environment in which surveys take place, the nature of surveys conducted, and the characteristics of our labor force continue to change, it is important that we continue to examine the interviewers' concerns about their former job as Census Bureau interviewers. Information obtained from the exit survey has provided insight on the measures the Census Bureau might take to decrease turnover, and has been useful in helping to determine if the reasons for interviewer turnover appear to be systemic and/or localized. From the BC-1294, we have learned that interviewer turnover is often a combination of reasons rather than one single reason. We have also learned that there are some reasons for turnover within the Census Bureau's control and some which are not.
The data we have collected from former current survey field representatives has helped the Census Bureau develop plans to reduce turnover. Results from prior versions of the exit survey have allowed for better informed management decisions regarding the future field work force and the implementation of more effective recruitment, pay plans, interviewer training, and retention strategies. The BC-1294, Field Representative Exit Questionnaire, has proven to be very useful and we want to continue to use it.
Since our last clearance, our current survey interviewers have been given new tools (
Plans for the current 2020 inter-decade testing have not been finalized at this time. We do not anticipate any large scale field site tests involving the use of the BC-1294(D), Decennial Field Staff Exit Questionnaire or the BC-1294(CM), Coverage Measurement Exit Questionnaire during the upcoming three years.
The exit questionnaire will be administered by telephone. While the use of automated collection techniques have been considered, a telephone methodology is employed due to the nature of the questions, which may require probing to obtain or clarify answers. In addition, a telephone methodology has historically yielded response rates that are greater than those obtained from similar mail out/mail back methodologies, especially when the collection interval is relatively short and the audience is former employees.
A sample of former employees will be called and asked a series of questions about when and why they voluntarily quit their job. The sample will not include interviewers who have been terminated for cause.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter.A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 7106, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on September 16, 2011, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
1. ETRAC Member Discussion Emerging Technology Analysis.
1. ETRAC Member Discussion Emerging Technology Analysis.
2. Public Comments.
3. ETRAC Member Discussion Emerging Technology Analysis.
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on August 15, 2011, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Cecily David, Office of Competition and Economic Analysis, phone: (202) 482-5131, e-mail:
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act (hereinafter “the Act”) of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4001
The Department of Commerce conducts its economic and legal analysis of the information supplied by applicants through the Office of Competition and Economic Analysis and the Office of the General Counsel. In the Department of Justice, analysis is conducted by the Antitrust Division.
Title III was enacted to reduce uncertainty regarding the application of U.S. antitrust laws to export activities—especially joint export activities involving domestic competitors. Among other benefits, the Export Trade Certificate of Review provides its holder and members named in the Certificate with (a) protection from government actions under state and federal antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate, and (b) some protection from frivolous private suits, by limiting liability in private actions to actual damages when the challenged activities are covered by an Export Trade Certificate of Review.
The form is sent by request to U.S. firms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after August 2011, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
Opportunity to Request a Review: Not later than the last day of September 2011,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters.
Please note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
All requests must be filed electronically in Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”) on the IA ACCESS Web site at
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Rich Malinowski, (727) 824-5305 or
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Region manages the U.S. fisheries of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico under the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for each Region. The Regional Fishery Management Councils prepared the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The regulations implementing the FMPs that have reporting requirements are at 50 CFR part 622.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR part 622 form the basis for this collection of information. Requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner is crucial to enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the MSA. The marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. The requirements imposed in the Southeast Region are for coral aquacultured live rock; golden crab traps; mackerel gillnet floats; spiny lobster traps; black sea bass pots; and buoy gear.
This request is for a revision of a currently approved information collection. This revision includes the addition of Buoy Gear identification requirements and the removal of Stone Crab trap identification requirements.
The markings will be placed directly on the gear.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before November 1, 2011.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Craig Cockrell, (301) 427-8503 or
This request is for an extension of a current information collection.
Under current regulations at 50 CFR 635.6, fishing vessels permitted for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species must display their official vessel numbers on their vessels. Flotation devices and high-flyers attached to certain fishing gears must also be marked with the vessel's number to identify the vessel to which the gear belongs. These requirements are necessary for identification, law enforcement, and monitoring purposes.
Specifically, all vessel owners that hold a valid HMS permit under 50 CFR 635.4, other than an HMS Angling permit, are required to display their vessel identification number. Numbers must be permanently affixed to, or painted on, the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull and on an appropriate weather deck, so as to be clearly visible from an enforcement vessel or aircraft.
Furthermore, the owner or operator of a vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 635.4 and that uses handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline, or gillnet, must display the vessel's name, registration number or Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit number on each float attached to a handline, buoy gear, or harpoon, and on the terminal floats and high-flyers (if applicable) on a longline or gillnet used by the vessel. The vessel's name or number must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height in block letters or Arabic numerals in a color that contrasts with the background color of the float or high-flyer.
Marking will be done directly on vessels and gear.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of guideline harvest level.
NMFS provides notice of the 2011 Pacific halibut guideline harvest levels (GHLs) for the guided sport fishery in International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) Regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). This notice is necessary to meet the regulatory requirement to publish notice announcing the GHLs and to inform the public about the 2011 GHLs for the guided sport fishery for halibut. The GHLs are benchmark harvest levels for participants in the guided sport fishery. The 2011 GHLs remain the same as the 2010 GHLs; the Area 2C GHL is 788,000 lbs (357.4 mt); and the Area 3A GHL is 3,650,000 lbs (1,655.6 mt).
The GHLs are effective February 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. This period is specified by IPHC as the sport fishing season in all waters in and off Alaska.
Gabrielle Aberle, (907) 586-7228.
In 2003, NMFS implemented a final rule (68 FR 47256, August 8, 2003) to establish GHLs for Pacific halibut (
This notice is consistent with § 300.65(c) and announces the 2011 GHLs for the guided sport fishery for Pacific halibut in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A. Regulations at § 300.65(c)(1) specify the GHLs based on the total constant exploitation yield (CEY) that is established annually by the IPHC. The total CEY for 2011 is 5,390,000 lbs (2,444.9 mt) in Area 2C, and 23,520,000 lbs (10,668.5 mt) in Area 3A. The corresponding GHLs are 788,000 lbs (357.4 mt) in Area 2C, and 3,650,000 lbs (1,655.6 mt) in Area 3A. The GHLs in Areas 2C and 3A did not change from the 2010 level. NMFS may take action at any time to limit the guided sport halibut harvest to as close to the GHL as practicable (50 CFR 300.65(c)(3)).
NMFS published a final rule implementing the charter halibut limited access program for the guided sport halibut fishery in Areas 2C and 3A on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554). As of February 1, 2011, this program limits the number of charter vessels that may participate in the guided sport halibut fishery in these areas. On July 22, 2011, NMFS published proposed regulations that would implement a catch sharing plan to allocate an annual halibut catch limit, established by the IPHC, between the guided sport and commercial fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A (76 FR 44156). If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, this new allocation program would not be effective before 2012.
16 U.S.C. 773
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce
Notice of public meetings.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings.
The SSC will meet Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. and Thursday, September 22 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will meet Thursday, September 22, 2011 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Admiral Fell Inn, 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231
Christopher M. Moore PhD, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901;
The primary purpose of the SSC meeting
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Herring Advisory Panel will hold a meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Crowne Plaza Boston North Shore, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923;
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council;
The items of discussion in the panel's agenda are as follows:
1. The Advisory Panel will review the Management Alternatives Under Consideration and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP and develop comments/recommendations for the Council to consider at its September 26-29, 2011 Meeting;
2. Review and provide feedback regarding the Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the upcoming benchmark stock assessment for Atlantic herring (54th Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) scheduled for spring 2012).
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will convene a meeting via conference call of the Ecosystem Plan Development Team (EPDT) which is open to the public.
The EPDT will meet on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 and Thursday, September 22, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. each day, or when business for each day is completed.
Public listening stations will be available at the following locations: Pacific Fishery Management Council, Small Conference Room, 7700 NE. Ambassador Place, Suite 101; Portland, Oregon 97220; Telephone: 503-820-2280. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Conference Room, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, California 95060; Telephone: 831-420-3900.
Mike Burner, Staff Officer; telephone: 503-820-2280.
Please note, this is not a public hearing; it is a work session for the primary purpose of drafting a report and recommendations to the Council on the Schedule and Plans for Developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The EPDT will primarily address Council requests from the June 2011 Council meeting where the Council approved a draft purpose and need statement and moved to develop an ecosystem plan that is primarily advisory in nature with the potential for expanding the plan to include regulatory authority in the future. The Council recommended continued management of fisheries through existing fishery management plans (FMPs), including potential future management measures for forage fish species. The Council also tasked the EPDT with developing a list of West Coast species that are not currently included in any FMP, that are not under State management, are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, or are species that could be the target of future fishery exploitation.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the EPDT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal EPDT action during this meeting. EPDT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at 503-820-2280 at least five days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On 7/8/2011 (76 FR 40342-40343), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing the small entity to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Patricia Briscoe,
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entity of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice to Add a System of Records.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on October 3, 2011 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
•
Mr. Charles J. Shedrick, Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Air Force Privacy Act Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, ATTN: SAF/XCPPI, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or by phone at 703-696-6488.
The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on August 29, 2011, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Air Force Combat Logistics Support System.
Defense Information Systems Agency Montgomery, 401 East Moore Drive, Building 857, Maxwell-AFB, Gunter Annex, Montgomery, AL 36114-3001.
Air Force government civilians, vendors doing business with the U.S. Air Force, Air Force active duty military personnel, Air Force reserve personnel, and Air National Guard personnel.
First name, last name, middle name, title, suffix, job series, job title, position, grade/step, supervisor's name, job address, organization, work e-mail address, work hours, hire date, pay grade, duty location, employee status, gender, certifications, qualification completeness status, qualification start and end date, qualification awarded date, qualification license number, qualification license restrictions, qualification license expiration date, Electronic Data Interchange Personal Identifier (EDIPI) also known as the DoD Identification Number, Control Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), company name, bank routing number, bank account number, accrual account number, Government Purchase Card (GPC)/IMPAC card numbers, Taxpayer ID, and Employee Labor Rates.
5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental regulations; 5 U.S.C. 5531, Definitions; 5 U.S.C. 5533, Dual pay from more than one position; limitations, exceptions; 5 U.S.C., Part III, Subpart D. Chapter 53, Subchapter III, Section 5335, Periodic step increases; 5 U.S.C. 6311, Regulations; Public Law 104-134, Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996; and DoD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Vol 4, Accounting Policy and Procedures.
Enhances logistics supportability for Air Force organizations across the globe
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
By Name and Electronic Data Interchange Personal Identifier (EDIPI) also known as the DoD Identification Number.
Data is maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Records are protected by standard Air Force access authentication procedures and by network system security software. Records are accessed by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in performance of their official duties, and by authorized personnel who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. All access is based upon role-based logons using the individual's Common Access Card (CAC) to login to the system. User's level of access is restricted by their role within the organization.
Delete records when superseded, obsolete, or no when longer needed, whichever is later.
Transaction records may be temporary in nature and deleted when actions are completed, superseded, obsolete, or when no longer needed.
Other transaction records may be cut off at the completion of the contract or payment and destroyed 6 years and 3 months after cutoff.
Destroy electronic records by overwriting or degaussing.
Program Executive Officer and Director, Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) and Logistics IT Systems (IL), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), 754 Electronic Systems Group/Enterprise Capabilities (ELSG), Building 262, Room N006, 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-5006.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Program Executive Officer and Director, Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) and Logistics IT Systems (IL), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), 754 Electronic Systems Group/Enterprise Capabilities (ELSG), Building 262, Room N006, 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-5006.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves should address written inquiries to Program Executive Officer and Director, Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) and Logistics IT Systems (IL), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), 754 Electronic Systems Group/Enterprise Capabilities (ELSG), Building 262, Room N006, 4375 Chidlaw Road, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-5006.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 29 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States:
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”
The Air Force rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in 32 CFR part 806b, Air Force Instruction 33-332, Air Force Privacy Program and may be obtained from the system manager.
Information is obtained from automated system interfaces or from other source documents.
None.
Department of the Army, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice to Add a System of Records.
The Department of the Army proposes to add a system of records to its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action would be effective without further notice on October 3, 2011 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Mr. Leroy Jones, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905, or by phone at (703) 428-6185.
The Department of the Army notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 3, 2011 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS).
Records Management Declassification Agency (RMDA), 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Room 146A, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860.
Active U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corp, and U.S. Coast Guard, Army retired, contractors employed by the Army, Department of Defense civilians employed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corp, and Coast Guard, newly assigned Department of Army civilian, Department of Army retired civilians, active and retired military family members verified in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS), active foreign officers (Non-US Military Officers), Homeland Security employees, Initial Entry Recruits, Individual Ready Reserve, Department of the Army Non-Appropriated Funds civilians, Army National Guard, Army National Guard retired personnel, Army Reserve and United States Military Academy (USMA) cadets who register for access and provide records for retention in the system and individuals who are the subject of records in the system.
The system encompasses a variety of records pertaining to all Army and DoD functionality; individual name, Social Security Number (SSN), DoD ID Number, address; user account information that contains data such as names, usernames, unit assignments, locations, office symbols, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and user roles; and also including information in the following categories:
Records concern military and Army civilian personnel as they relate to general personnel data of member, his or her dependents, such as insurance, voting, citizenship, and handling responsibility for personal property. Records concerning methods and procedures for identifying skills and abilities of military personnel, testing, and awarding military occupational specialties for use in assignment to related duties and jobs.
Records for the processing of military personnel upon entry into the service, in a training or temporarily unassigned status, upon assignment overseas and return, and for separation from the service. Also covered are records on appointment of officer personnel, enlistment and re-enlistment of enlisted personnel, recruiting activities, and other matters relating to the entry of military personnel into the Army.
Records concerning administrative and management functions pertaining to installations and responsibilities of installation commanders. Subject functional areas include activation and inactivation, site and master planning, quarters and housing, commercial solicitation, financial institutions, sales of products and services, and similar functions applicable at the installation level not specifically provided for in other series. Also covered are organization, mission, responsibilities, duties, and functions of Department of Defense, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Department of the Army agencies, major commands, and other commands, units, and organizations.
Records concerning identification, classification, downgrading, declassification, dissemination, and protection of defense information, storage and destruction of classified matter, industrial security, investigations involving compromise of classified information, access to classified data, and other matters pertaining to security; records covering the protection and preservation of the military, economic, and productive strength of the United States, including the security of the Government in domestic and foreign affairs and records concerning responsibilities, policies, functions, and procedures pertaining to security assistance.
Records concerning planning, policies, procedures, architectures, and responsibilities pertaining to information management; life cycle management of information systems; and records pertaining to all five Information Mission Area disciplines (communications, automation, records management, visual information, and publications and printing); records concerning policy, direction, planning, testing, and operation of communications and electronics systems, such as radio, telephone, teletypewriter, and radar.
Composition, mission, responsibilities and functions of the Army Medical Department and its related corps, administration and operation of Army medical treatment facilities, medical, dental, and veterinary care, and medical, dental, and veterinary equipment and supplies.
These records concern logistics policies, procedures, and support covering supplies, equipment, and facilities in several different logistical areas.
Administrative functions, such as control of office space, visits, attendance at meetings and conferences, gifts and donations, memorialization proceedings, and other support functions not specifically provided for in other series.
Actions involved in preparing for war or emergencies; bringing the Army to a state of readiness; and assembling and organizing personnel, supplies, and other resources for active military service. Army participation and support in matters of civil disturbance, disaster relief, and civil defense and emergency action; records concern administration of the Army safety program, which is directed toward accident prevention Army-wide. Program responsibilities include conducting studies and surveys to determine unsafe practices and conditions. Also covers records on nuclear accidents and incidents.
Judiciary boards and proceedings, decisions, opinions, and policies applicable to civil law and military affairs, international, foreign, procurement, and contract law, legal assistance for military personnel and their dependents, policies and procedures relative to patents, inventions, taxation, and land litigation involving the Army, trials by courts-martial, including pretrial, trial, and post trial procedures, nonjudicial punishment, investigation, processing, settlement, and payment of claims against or on behalf of the Government when the Army is involved.
Policies, procedures, direction, and supervision of financial functions, including budgeting, accounting, funding, entitlement, pay, expenditures, Army Management Structure and fiscal code, and related reporting. Records concerning authority, responsibilities, organization, and policies relating to auditing service in the Department of the Army, action requested on United States Army Audit Agency reports, and audit procedures for non-appropriated and similar funds.
Army environmental management records, including programs, policies, instructions, and activities; matters affecting the quality of the environment, such as impact on the atmosphere, natural resources, water, and the community.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; 44 U.S.C. Sections 3301-3314, the Federal Records Act; Executive Order 13526—Classified National Security Information Memorandum of December 29, 2009—Implementation of the E.O. `Classified National Security Information' Order of December 29, 2009—Original Classification Authority; DoDD 5015.2, DoD Records Management Program; Army Regulation 25-400-2, The Army Records Information Management System; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
The Department of the Army is proposing to establish a new system of records that will be used to manage and archive long-term and permanent records providing core information technology to records management support programs (Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, Component Programs, Combat Records Research, and declassification review of classified, permanent, historical Army records 25 years old or older, as well as manage the joint review of DoD equities in the Joint Referral Center (JRC).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DOD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD `Blanket Routine Uses' set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notice also apply to this system.
To the Department of Veterans Affairs to verify military service for claims filed by the veteran.
This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) issued pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18-R may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974 or mentioned in this system of records notice.
Electronic storage media and hard copy records.
By name of individual, Social Security Number (SSN), subject matter, or title of record.
Electronically and optically stored records are maintained in fail-safe system software with password-protected access. Indexes of hard copy records are stored in records holding areas Army wide. Records are accessible only to authorized persons with a need-to-know who are properly screened, cleared and trained. The system maintains data encryption, role based access, Common Access Card access, and authentication through the Army Knowledge Online Portal through secure socket protocols.
Records will be retained in accordance with their respective disposition schedule and will be destroyed or permanently accessioned to the National Archives when no longer needed for reference and/or for conducting business. Records are destroyed by erasing, purging, shredding or burning.
ARIMS Systems Managers, Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Room 102, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the System Manager, Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Room 102, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860.
For verification purpose, individual should provide full name, any details which may assist in locating records and their signature. The individual should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States:
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United State of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing in true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Systems Managers, Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph
For verification purpose, individual should provide full name, any details which may assist in locating records and their signature. The individual should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. following format:
If executed outside the United States:
‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.
The Army's rules for accessing records and for contesting contents and appealing agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Information is obtained from individuals, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other Federal, state and local agencies.
During the course of records management, declassification and claims research, exempt materials from ‘other’ systems of records in turn may become part of the case records in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those ‘other’ systems of records are entered into this system, the Department of the Army hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those ‘other’ systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary systems of records which they are a part.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 36 CFR, Chapter XII, Subchapter B. For additional information contact the system manager.
Department of Education.
Comment Request.
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 3, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will gather information on solar energy market indicators. The Solar Energy Technologies Program (SETP) seeks to reduce non-hardware costs of solar systems associated with processes such as project siting, permitting and interconnection, system installation, and project financing. In order to direct strategic investments toward reducing those costs, the Agency requires information on the current status of non-hardware costs and the underlying cost drivers. Questions for this collection are focused on permitting processes, interconnection processes, available financing options, and planning and zoning issues as they relate to rooftop solar PV installations.
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 3, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to the
Jennifer DeCesaro, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585. Fax: 202-586-8148.
This information collection request contains: (1)
These activities are authorized under the Solar Photovoltaic Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-590, codified at 42 U.S.C. 5581 et seq., and the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
November 15-16, 2011 9 a.m.-5 p.m. November 17, 2011 9 a.m.-12 p.m.
Hilton Knoxville, 501 West Church Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Gil Sperling, STEAB's Designated Federal Officer; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington DC 20585; phone: (202) 586-1644.
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open teleconference.
This notice announces a teleconference call of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:30 p.m.—4:30 p.m. EST. To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed below.
Gil Sperling, STEAB's Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 287-1644.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by October 3, 2011.
Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to Created by OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC11-519-001. Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at
For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-519-001.
Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in FERC Docket Number IC11-519 may do so through eSubscription at
Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail at
The FERC-519, “Application under Federal Power Act section 203,” OMB Control No. 1902-0082, is necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824b. Section 203 authorizes the Commission to grant approval of transactions in which a public utility disposes of jurisdictional facilities, merges such facilities with the facilities owned by another person or acquires the securities of another public utility. Under this statute, the Commission must find that the proposed transaction will be consistent with the public interest.
Under section 203 of the FPA, FERC must review proposed mergers, acquisitions and dispositions of jurisdictional facilities by public utilities, if the value of the facilities exceeds $10 million, and must approve these transactions if they are consistent with the public interest. One of FERC's overarching goals is to promote competition in wholesale power markets, having determined that effective competition, as opposed to traditional forms of price regulation, can best protect the interests of ratepayers. Market power, however, can be exercised to the detriment of effective competition and customers, making it necessary for FERC to review and approve or disapprove all jurisdictional mergers, dispositions and acquisitions. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 33.
The estimated total cost to respondents is $3,028,143 [44,240 hours/2080 hours
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, using technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable filing instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to this collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by October 3, 2011.
Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to Created by OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC11-523-001. Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at
For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-523-001.
Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in FERC Docket Number IC11-523 may do so through eSubscription at
Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail at
The information collection is under the requirements of FERC-523, “Applications for Authorization for Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities”, OMB Control No. 1902-0043.
Federal Power Act (FPA) section 204, 16 USC 824c, prohibits public utilities and licensees from issuing any security, or assuming any obligation or liability as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person, unless they have submitted an application to the Commission and receive Commission authorization to do so. The Commission issues an order if it finds that the security issue or assumption meets three criteria. First, it is for “lawful object,” within the corporate purposes of the applicant and compatible with the public interest. Second it is necessary or appropriate for or consistent with the proper performance by the applicant as a public utility. Third, it will not impair its ability to perform service, and (b) is reasonably necessary or appropriate to perform service.
The Commission uses the information contained in filings to determine its acceptance and/or rejection of applications for authorization to either issue securities or to assume an obligation or liability by the public utilities and their licensees who make these applications.
The Commission implements this statute through its regulations, which are found at 18 CFR part 34; and 18 CFR 131.43 and 131.50. Part 131 prescribes the required filing format. The information is filed electronically.
The estimated total cost to respondents is $798,721 [11,669 hours/2080 hours
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, using technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable filing instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to this collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The cost estimate for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. Due to the project works already existing and the limited scope of proposed rehabilitation of the project site described above, the applicant's close coordination with Federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies during pre-filing consultation, and agency recommended preliminary terms and conditions, we intend to waive scoping, shorten the notice filing period, and expedite the exemption process. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters including the preliminary 30(c) terms and conditions, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic resources.
n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
o. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted, and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing Taum Sauk Pumped Storage Project consists of: (1) A lower reservoir impounded by a concrete gravity dam downstream of the confluence of the East Fork Black River and Taum Sauk Creek; (2) an upper reservoir on the top of Proffit Mountain impounded by a rebuilt roller-compacted concrete dam; (3) vertical shaft, rock and concrete-lined tunnel sections, and a penstock conduit; (4) a pump-generating plant with two reversible pump units and two motor generators with a total installed capacity of 408 megawatts; (5) an excavated tailrace and open channel to the lower reservoir; (6) a 138-kilovolt switchyard/substation; (7) a gravel and sedimentation trap (bin wall) on the East Fork of the Black River; and (8) associated ancillary equipment.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”,“REPLY COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
You may also register online at
n. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that on August 19, 2010, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), with a principal place of business at 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA, filed in Docket No. CP11-537-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 the Commission's Rules and Regulations for all the necessary authorizations required to abandon by sale the East Emporium Measurement and Regulation facility located in Potter County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Copies of this filing are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site Web at
Questions regarding this application should be directed to Margaret H. Peters, Assistant General Counsel, DominionTransmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219, telephone (804) 771-3992, FAX (804) 771-3940, and e-mail
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Whitestone Power and Communications (Whitestone) has filed with the Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to file an application for an original license for a hydrokinetic pilot project and a draft license; (2) a request for waivers of the integrated licensing process regulations necessary for expedited processing of a hydrokinetic pilot project license application; (3) a proposed process plan and schedule; (4) a request to be designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act consultation; and (5) a request to be designated as the non-Federal representative for section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (collectively the pre-filing materials).
k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments (original and eight copies) must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the project name (Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Power Project) and number (P-13305-002), and bear the heading “Comments on the proposed Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Power Project.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting comments on the pre-filing materials must do so by September 21, 2011.
Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
l. With this notice, we are approving Whitestone's request to be designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its request to initiate consultation under section 106 of the
m. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of Whitestone's request to use the Pilot Project Licensing Procedures. Upon its review of the project's overall characteristics relative to the pilot project criteria, the draft license application contents, and any comments filed, the Commission will determine whether there is adequate information to conclude the pre-filing process.
n. The proposed Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Power Project would consist of: (1) A 12-foot-wide, 16-foot-diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel; (2) a 34-foot-long, 19- to 24-foot-wide, aluminum-frame floatation platform mounted on a 34-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter high-density-polyethylene (HDPE) pontoon and a 34-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter HDPE pontoon; (3) a 100-kilowatt turbine/generator unit; (4) a 33-foot-long, 3.5-foot-wide gangway from the shore to the floating pontoon; (5) three anchoring cables to secure the flotation platform to the shore, including a 30-foot-long primary safety tether, a 117-foot-long primary cable, and a 100-foot-long secondary cable; (6) an approximately 900-foot-long transmission cable from the floatation platform to an existing Golden Valley Electric Association distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is anticipated to operate from April until October, with an estimated annual generation of 200 megawatt-hours.
o. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing materials are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
p.
q. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern
* * *
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Tioga Lateral Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Alliance Pipeline L.P. (Alliance) in Williams, Mountrail, Burke, Ward, and Renville Counties, North Dakota. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on September 26, 2011.
Comments may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled as follows: FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Tioga Lateral Project, September 14, 2011-6:30 p.m., Memorial Hall, 53rd Street NE., Kenmare, North Dakota 58746.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
Alliance plans to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline to connect new natural gas production in the Williston Basin with the existing Alliance mainline, which currently delivers high-energy natural gas from production areas in northwestern Canada to the Chicago market area. The project would also involve construction of a new compressor station and other appurtenant facilities. The Tioga Lateral Project would create approximately 120 million cubic feet per day of new transportation capacity.
The Tioga Lateral Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Approximately 77.1 miles of 12-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline crossing portions of Williams, Mountrail, Burke, Ward, and Renville Counties, North Dakota;
• A 4,500 horsepower compressor station containing two natural gas-driven engines/compressors in Williams County;
• One meter station within the proposed compressor station site in Williams County;
• One pressure regulating station adjacent to the existing Alliance mainline in Renville County;
• One pig
• Three mainline block valves.
The planned pipeline route begins at an existing gas processing facility near Tioga, North Dakota, and terminates at a tie-in along the existing Alliance mainline near Sherwood, North Dakota. The proposed pipeline would cross approximately 1.7 miles of public land, including approximately 0.8 mile of the Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge and 0.9 mile of state land. The proposed pipeline would also cross approximately 16.0 miles of private lands that are subject to conservation easements held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Alliance is evaluating potential route refinements to reduce the crossing of FWS conservation easements.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.
Based on preliminary information, construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 730.6 acres of land. Following construction, about 477.5 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. Due to a lack of existing utility infrastructure between Tioga and Sherwood, the proposed route does not
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• endangered and threatened species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• public safety.
We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. A flow chart illustrating the pre-filing process is included with this notice (Appendix 2). The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some Federal and State agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the comments received during the scoping process, may be published and distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 5.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit the views of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before September 26, 2011.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (PF11-7-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You may mail a paper copy of your comments to the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes Federal, State, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 3).
Once Alliance files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a formal application for the project is filed with the Commission.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
FERC's public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Finally, Alliance has established an Internet Web site on its homepage,
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Crowville Gas Storage Project Amendment (Project) as proposed by Perryville Gas Storage, LLC (Perryville) in the above referenced docket. Perryville proposes to increase the working capacity of its two previously certificated (Docket No. CP09-418-000) natural gas storage caverns by 2.5 billion-cubic-feet each; and install three freshwater supply wells, six brine disposal wells and eight groundwater monitoring wells, all of which would be located in Franklin Parish, Louisiana.
The EA assesses the potential impacts on the environment resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As described in the EA, the FERC staff has concluded that approval of the proposed Project, with the implementation of appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. (202) 502-8371.
Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential impacts on the environment, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before September 26, 2011.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket numbers (CP11-159-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages the electronic filing of comments (eFiling) and has dedicated expert staff to assist you by phone at (202) 502-8258 or by electronic mail at
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, which can be reached by phone at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Texas Eastern Appalachia to Market 2012 Expansion Project (Project) as proposed by Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in the above referenced dockets. Texas Eastern proposes to install and operate approximately 17.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline and associated aboveground facilities in Greene, Fayette, Franklin, Adams and Fulton Counties, Pennsylvania. Texas Eastern also proposes to abandon approximately 11.3 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in Franklin and Adams Counties, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Texas Eastern proposes to increase the amount of compression at its Bedford Compressor Station located in Bedford County, Pennsylvania by 20,720 horsepower (hp).
The EA assesses the potential impacts on the environment resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As described in the EA, the FERC staff has concluded that approval of the proposed Project, with the implementation of appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at
Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential impacts on the environment, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before September 26, 2011.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP11-67-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages the electronic filing of comments (eFiling) and has dedicated expert staff to assist you by phone at (202) 502-8258 or by electronic mail at
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, which can be reached by phone at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Golden Triangle Storage Expansion Project (GTS Expansion Project), involving construction and operation of facilities by Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. (GTS) in Jefferson County, Texas. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on September 28, 2011.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” was attached to the project notice GTS provided to landowners. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
GTS proposes to construct and operate two new salt dome natural gas storage caverns. The GTS Expansion Project would provide an additional working gas capacity of 16.6 billion cubic feet. According to GTS, its project would provide needed natural gas storage capacity in the Gulf Coast region.
The GTS Expansion Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Two wellheads and associated valves for solution mining and natural gas injections/withdrawals;
• Two new permanent well pads and access roads;
• Two 16-inch-diameter raw water supply pipelines (750 and 1,400 feet in length) and two 16-inch-diameter brine return pipelines (750 and 1,400 feet in length);
• Two 20-inch-diameter natural gas pipelines (1,300 and 700 feet in length); and
• Other appurtenant facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 20.2 acres of land. Following construction, about 4.5 acres would be maintained for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or
Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA. The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the comments received during the scoping process, may be published and distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before September 28, 2011.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP11-531-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that, on August 24, 2011, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. filed to supplement its May 24, 2011 filing of revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff, in the above-captioned docket, pursuant to the Commission's request. Such filing serves to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of TPW Petersburg, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 13, 2011.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Marathon Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 13, 2011.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
On January 3, 2011, Northland Power Mississippi River LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, near the town of Point a La Hache, in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed NPI 014 hydrokinetic project would consist of the following: (1) Up to 400 TREK generating units installed in a matrix on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the installation would be up to 100,000 kilowatts; (3) shielded underwater cables would convey each matrix power to a substation; and (4) a transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 876.0 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On August 10, 2011, the Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund IV filed an application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed USACE LD 17 Project No. 14253, to be located at the existing Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 17 on the Mississippi River, near the City of New Boston, in Mercer County, Illinois. The Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 17 is owned by the United States government and operated by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) Three new 109-foot-wide by 40-foot-high steel lock frame modules each containing ten 650-kilowatt hydropower turbines having a total combined generating capacity of 19.5 megawatts; (2) one new 109-foot-wide and one new 220-foot-wide tailrace extending 75-150 feet downstream; (3) a new 25-foot by 50-foot switchyard; (4) a new intake structure of undetermined size; (5) a new 6-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual generation of 119,655 megawatt-hours.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On January 24, 2011, and supplemented on April 25, 2011, May 3, 2011, July 6, 2011, and August 6, 2011, Amnor Hydro West Inc. (Amnor or applicant) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of constructing the Hiram M. Chittenden Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project (Hiram Dam Project or project) located at the Hiram M. Chittenden Lock and Dam facility owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project would be located on Salmon Bay near Seattle in King County, Washington. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would include: (1) Three new intake structures and a new powerhouse integral with three of the six gates of the Corps' lock and dam facility; (2) three new axial turbine/generator units with a combined capacity of 5 megawatts with a design head of 26 feet; (3) a new tailrace exhaust apron returning flows to Salmon Bay; (4) a new 14.7-kilovolt, 100-foot-long transmission line from the powerhouse south to a proposed substation; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be 17.3 gigawatt-hours.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the hearing noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
The Arkansas Public Service Commission will hold an evidentiary hearing involving Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) in Docket No. 10-011-U beginning at 8:30 a.m. on September 7, 2011. The hearing involves issues surrounding EAI's membership in the Entergy System Agreement, or any successor agreement and control of its transmission system.
The hearing will be held in Hearing Room 1, Arkansas Public Service Commission Building, 1000 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
This hearing is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Enforcement Bureau (the “Bureau”) gives notice of Mr. Tyrone D. Pipkin's suspension from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or “E-Rate Program”). Additionally, the Bureau gives notice that debarment proceedings are commencing against him. Mr. Pipkin, or any person who has an existing contract with or intends to contract with him to provide or receive services in matters arising out of activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support, may respond by filing an opposition request, supported by documentation to Joy Ragsdale, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Opposition requests must be received by 30 days from the receipt of the suspension letter or October 3, 2011, whichever comes first. The Bureau will decide any opposition request for reversal or modification of suspension or debarment within 90 days of its receipt of such requests.
Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Joy Ragsdale, Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Joy Ragsdale may be contacted by phone at (202) 418-1697 or e-mail at
The Bureau has suspension and debarment authority pursuant to 47 CFR 54.8 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). Suspension will help to ensure that the party to be suspended cannot continue to benefit from the schools and libraries mechanism pending resolution of the debarment process. Attached is the suspension letter, DA 11-1424, which was mailed to Mr. Pipkin and released on August 17, 2011. The complete text of the notice of suspension and initiation of debarment proceedings is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, In addition, the complete text is available on the FCC's Web site at
The suspension letter follows:
The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) has received notice of your conviction of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 in connection with your participation in the Federal schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (“E-Rate program”).
The Commission has established procedures to prevent persons who have “defrauded the government or engaged in similar acts through activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism” from receiving the benefits associated with that program.
On March 28, 2011, you entered a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to defraud and obtain money from the E-Rate Program by controlling the application, bidding, and implementation process of the E-Rate program for schools located in four states.
On June 21, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced you to serve one year and a day in prison followed by a two year period of supervised release for conspiring to defraud the Federal E-Rate program in multiple states.
Pursuant to § 54.8(b) of the Commission's rules,
In accordance with the Commission's debarment rules, you may contest this suspension or the scope of this suspension by filing arguments, with any relevant documents, within 30 calendar days after receipt of this letter or after a notice is published in the
As discussed above, your guilty plea and conviction of criminal conduct in connection with the E-Rate program serves as a basis for immediate suspension from the program, as well as a basis to commence debarment proceedings against you. Conviction of criminal fraud is cause for debarment as defined in § 54.8(c) of the Commission's rules.
As with the suspension process, you may contest debarment or the scope of the proposed debarment by filing arguments and any relevant documentation within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter or publication in the
If and when your debarment becomes effective, you will be prohibited from participating in activities associated with or related to the schools and libraries support mechanism for three years from the date of debarment.
Please direct any response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554, to the attention of Joy M. Ragsdale, Attorney Advisor, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-A236, with a copy to Theresa Z. Cavanaugh, Acting Division Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C322, Federal Communications
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Ragsdale via U.S. postal mail, email, or by telephone at (202) 418-7931. You may contact me at (202) 418-1420 or at the email address noted above if Ms. Ragsdale is unavailable.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,Division of Resolutions and Receiverships,Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 8.1,1601 Bryan Street,Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
Federal Maritime Commission.
September 8, 2011—10 a.m.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
A portion of the meeting will be in Open Session and the remainder of the meeting will be in Closed Session.
1. Staff Briefing and Recommendation Concerning Draft Proposed Rule Revising Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility Requirements, 46 CFR part 540, and Form FMC-131.
2. Staff Recommendation and Discussion Concerning Proposed Modification of 46 CFR 530.8(c)(2) for Index-based Service Contracts.
1. Staff Update and Discussion of PierPass Traffic Mitigation Fee.
2. Staff Briefing and Discussion Concerning Slow Steaming and Bunker Fuel Surcharges.
Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of public meeting.
Three public meetings will be held regarding the notice submitted by Capital One Financial Corporation, McLean, Virginia, to acquire ING Bank, FSB, Wilmington, Delaware, and indirectly to acquire shares of Sharebuilder Advisors, LLC, and ING Direct Investing, Inc., both of Seattle, Washington, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act (“BHC Act”) and related statutes. The purpose of the public meetings is to collect information relating to factors the Board is required to consider under the BHC Act.
The meeting dates are:
(1) Tuesday, September 20, 2011, 8:30 a.m. EDT, Washington, DC.
(2) Tuesday, September 27, 2011, 8:30 a.m. CDT, Chicago, IL.
(3) Wednesday, October 5, 2011, 8:30 a.m. PDT, San Francisco, CA.
The public meeting locations are:
(1) Washington, DC—Renaissance Washington DC Downtown Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, NW. Washington DC 20001.
(2) Chicago—Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604.
(3) San Francisco—Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 101 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
For the Washington meeting: Kimberly Zeuli, Vice President and Community Affairs Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, VA 23261.
For the Chicago meeting: Alicia Williams, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604.
For the San Francisco meeting: Scott Turner, Vice President and Community Affairs Officer, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 101 Market Street, Mail Stop 215, San Francisco, CA 94105.
On July 15, 2011, Capital One Financial Corporation, McLean, Virginia (“Capital One”), requested the Board's approval under the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841
The purpose of the public meetings is to collect information relating to the factors the Board is required to consider under the BHC Act. The Board is required to consider whether the notificant's performance of the activities can reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public (such as greater convenience, increased competition, and gains in efficiency) that outweigh possible adverse effects (such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, unsound banking practices, and risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system). Consideration of the above factors includes an evaluation of the financial and managerial resources of the notificant, including its subsidiaries, and any company to be acquired; the effect of the proposed transaction on those resources; and the management expertise, internal control and risk-management systems, and capital of the entity conducting the activity. In acting on a notice to acquire a savings association, the Board also reviews the records of performance of the insured depository institutions involved in the proposal under the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires the Board to take into account a relevant institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution, in evaluating such an acquisition proposal. 12 U.S.C. 2903.
Testimony at the public meetings will be presented to a panel consisting of a Presiding Officer and other panel members appointed by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will have the authority and discretion to ensure that the meetings proceed in a fair and orderly manner. In contrast to a formal administrative hearing, the rules for taking evidence in an administrative proceeding will not apply to the public meetings. Panel members may question witnesses, but no cross-examination of witnesses will be permitted. The public meetings will be transcribed, and the transcripts will be posted on the Board's public Web site within several days after each meeting. Information regarding the procedures for obtaining a copy of the transcripts will be announced at the public meetings.
The Presiding Officer will prepare a schedule for persons wishing to testify from the requests received for each meeting and establish the order of presentation. To ensure an opportunity for all interested commenters to present their views, the Presiding Officer may limit the amount of time allotted to each presentation. Persons not listed on the schedule may be permitted to speak at the public meeting, if time permits, at the conclusion of the schedule of witnesses in the discretion of the Presiding Officer. Copies of testimony may, but need not, be filed with the Presiding Officer before a person's presentation.
The request to testify must include the following information: (i) The location of the meeting the participant wishes to attend; (ii) a brief statement of the nature of the expected testimony (including whether the testimony will support or oppose the proposed transaction or provide other comment on the proposal) and the estimated time required for the presentation; (iii) the address and telephone number (e-mail address and facsimile number, if available) of the person testifying; and (iv) the identification of any special needs, such translation services, physical disabilities requiring assistance, or presentations requiring visual aids. Translators will be provided to the extent available if noted in the request to testify. Persons interested only in attending a meeting, but not testifying, need not submit a written request to attend.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 12, 2011.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President), 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
Public Buildings Service (P), General Services Administration.
Notice of a bulletin.
The attached bulletin announces the designation and redesignation of two Federal buildings.
U.S. General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service (P), Attn: David E. Foley, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, e-mail at
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice provides notice of CDC's intent to fund continuation cooperative agreement applications under the Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program. These applications have been previously received and competed in response to CDC's Funding Opportunity CDC-RFA-DP08-805. It is the intent of CDC to provide continuation funding to sixteen (16) previously received and reviewed applications with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Section 4002, appropriations.
Recipients funded with PPACA appropriations will be required to report project status on an annual basis. Specific reporting requirements will be detailed in the Terms and Conditions of the Notice of Cooperative Agreement Award.
CFDA Number 93.548 is the PPACA specific CFDA number for this initiative. It will replace CFDA Number 93.283 published in the above referenced Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
Applications were funded in order by score and rank determined by previously held review panel. In addition, as was referenced in the Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program FOA, funding decisions related to awards may include a preference for states that have higher obesity prevalence rates (BRFSS, 2006).
CDC will add the following Authority to that which is reflected in the published Funding Opportunity: Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148).
The effective date for this action is September 2, 2011 and remains in effect until the expiration of the one (1) year project period of the PPACA funded applications.
Elmira Benson, Deputy Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone (770) 488-2802, e-mail:
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). PPACA is designed to improve and expand the scope of health care coverage for Americans. Cost savings through disease prevention is an important element of this legislation
PPACA legislation affords an important opportunity to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities by supporting intensive state and community approaches to chronic disease prevention and control. Therefore, awarding cooperative agreements with PPACA funds under PPHF to existing grantees to carry out Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program objectives is consistent with the purpose of PPHF, as stated above, to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs. Further, the Secretary allocated funds to CDC, pursuant to the PPHF, for the types of activities that the Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program initiatives are designed to carry out.
Therefore, the Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Program activities CDC proposes to fund with PPACA appropriations are authorized by the amendment to the Public Health Services Act which authorized the Prevention and Wellness Program as embodied in CDC-RFA-DP08-805.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice provides notice of CDC's intent to fund continuation cooperative agreement applications under REACH US, Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Across the U.S. These applications have been previously received and competed in response to CDC Funding Opportunity CDC-RFA-DP07-707. It is the intent of CDC to provide continuation funding to thirty nine (39) previously received and reviewed applications with Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Section 4002, appropriations.
Recipients funded with PPACA appropriations will be required to report project status on an annual basis. Specific reporting requirements will be detailed in the Terms and Conditions of the Notice of Cooperative Agreement Award.
CFDA Number 93.541 is the PPACA specific CFDA number for this initiative. It will replace CFDA Number 93.283 published in the above referenced REACH US Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
Applications were funded in order by score and rank determined by previously held review panel. In addition, as was referenced in the REACH FOA, funding decisions were made to ensure:
• Geographic diversity across the United States.
• Inclusion of each racial/ethnic group that is specified in CDC-RFA-DP07-707 is represented.
• Inclusions of each health priority areas that are specified in CDC-RFA-DP07-707 are represented.
• Representation of communities with evident health disparities.
• Communities who currently lack access to health priority area-related resources and/or with high levels of poverty are represented as documented in the application.
The effective date for this action is September 2, 2011 and remains in effect until the expiration of the one (1) year project period of the PPACA funded applications.
Elmira Benson, Deputy Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone: (770) 488-2802, e-mail:
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). PPACA is designed to improve and expand the scope of health care coverage for Americans. Cost savings through disease prevention is an important element of this legislation and PPACA has established a Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) for this purpose. Specifically, the legislation states in Section 4002 that the PPHF is to “provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs”. PPACA and the Prevention and Public Health Fund make improving public health a priority with investments to improve public health.
The PPHF states that the Secretary shall transfer amounts in the Fund to accounts within the Department of Health and Human Services to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2008 level, for programs authorized by the public Health Services Act, for prevention, wellness and public health activities including prevention research and health screenings, such as the Community Transformation Grant Program, the Education and Outreach Campaign for Preventative Benefits, and Immunization Programs.
REACH US and PPACA legislation affords an important opportunity to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities by supporting an intensive community approach to chronic disease prevention and control. Therefore, awarding cooperative agreements with PPACA funds under PPHF to existing grantees to carry out REACH objectives is consistent with the purpose of PPHF, as stated above, to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs. Further, the Secretary allocated funds to CDC, pursuant to the PPHF, for the types of activities that the REACH initiatives are designed to carry out.
Therefore, the REACH program activities CDC proposes to fund with PPACA appropriations are authorized by the amendment to the Public Health Services Act which authorized the Prevention and Wellness Program as embodied in CDC-RFA-DP07-707.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice provides notice of CDC's intent to fund continuation cooperative agreement applications under REACH CORE, Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Communities Organized to Respond and Evaluate. These applications have been previously received and competed in response to CDC Funding Opportunity CDC-RFA-DP10-1014. It is the intent of CDC to provide continuation funding to one (1) previously received and reviewed application with Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Section 4002, appropriations.
Recipients funded with PPACA appropriations will be required to report project status on an annual basis. Specific reporting requirements will be detailed in the Terms and Conditions of the Notice of Cooperative Agreement Award.
CFDA Number 93.541 is the PPACA specific CFDA number for this initiative. It will replace CFDA Number 93.283 published in the above referenced REACH CORE Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
Applications were funded in order by score and rank determined by previously held review panel. In addition, as was referenced in the REACH CORE FOA, funding decisions were made to ensure:
• Geographic diversity across the United States.
• Inclusion of each racial/ethnic group that is specified in CDC-RFA-DP10-1014 is represented.
• Inclusions of each health priority areas that are specified in CDC-RFA-DP10-1014 are represented.
• Representation of communities with evident health disparities.
• Communities who currently lack access to health priority area-related resources and/or with high levels of poverty are represented as documented in the application.
The effective date for this action is September 2, 2011 and remains in effect until the expiration of the one (1) year project period of the PPACA funded applications.
Elmira Benson, Deputy Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone: (770)488-2802, e-mail:
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). PPACA is designed to improve and expand the scope of health care coverage for Americans. Cost savings through disease prevention is an important element of this legislation and PPACA has established a Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) for this purpose. Specifically, the legislation states in Section 4002 that the PPHF is to “provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs”. PPACA and the Prevention and Public Health Fund make improving public health a priority with investments to improve public health.
The PPHF states that the Secretary shall transfer amounts in the Fund to accounts within the Department of Health and Human Services to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2008 level, for programs authorized by the public Health Services Act, for prevention, wellness and public health activities including prevention research and health screenings, such as the Community Transformation Grant Program, the Education and Outreach Campaign for Preventative Benefits, and Immunization Programs.
REACH CORE and PPACA legislation affords an important opportunity to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities by supporting an intensive community approach to chronic disease prevention and control. Therefore, awarding cooperative agreements with PPACA funds under PPHF to existing grantees to carry out REACH objectives is consistent with the purpose of PPHF, as stated above, to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs. Further, the Secretary allocated funds to CDC, pursuant to the PPHF, for the types of activities that the REACH initiatives are designed to carry out.
Therefore, the REACH program activities CDC proposes to fund with PPACA appropriations are authorized by the amendment to the Public Health Services Act which authorized the Prevention and Wellness Program as embodied in CDC-RFA-DP10-1014.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice provides notice of CDC's intent to fund continuation cooperative agreement applications under the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health National
Recipients funded with PPACA appropriations will be required to report project status on an annual basis. Specific reporting requirements will be detailed in the Terms and Conditions of the Notice of Cooperative Agreement Award.
CFDA Number 93.541 is the PPACA specific CFDA number for this initiative. It will replace CFDA Number 93.283 published in the above referenced REACH MNO Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
Applications were funded in order by score and rank determined by previously held review panel.
CDC will add the following Authority to that which is reflected in the published Funding Opportunity: Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148).
The effective date for this action is September 2, 2011 and remains in effect until the expiration of the one (1) year project period of the PPACA funded applications.
Elmira Benson, Deputy Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone: (770) 488-2802, e-mail:
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). PPACA is designed to improve and expand the scope of health care coverage for Americans. Cost savings through disease prevention is an important element of this legislation and PPACA has established a Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) for this purpose. Specifically, the legislation states in Section 4002 that the PPHF is to “provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs”. PPACA and the Prevention and Public Health Fund make improving public health a priority with investments to improve public health.
The PPHF states that the Secretary shall transfer amounts in the Fund to accounts within the Department of Health and Human Services to increase funding, over the fiscal year 2008 level, for programs authorized by the public Health Services Act, for prevention, wellness and public health activities including prevention research and health screenings, such as the Community Transformation Grant Program, the Education and Outreach Campaign for Preventative Benefits, and Immunization Programs.
REACH MNO and PPACA legislation affords an important opportunity to advance public health across the lifespan and to reduce health disparities by supporting an intensive community approach to chronic disease prevention and control. Therefore, awarding cooperative agreements with PPACA funds under PPHF to existing grantees to carry out REACH objectives is consistent with the purpose of PPHF, as stated above, to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs. Further, the Secretary allocated funds to CDC, pursuant to the PPHF, for the types of activities that the REACH initiatives are designed to carry out.
Therefore, the REACH program activities CDC proposes to fund with PPACA appropriations are authorized by the amendment to the Public Health Services Act which authorized the Prevention and Wellness Program as embodied in CDC-RFA-DP09-905.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the ABRWH to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2013.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
This meeting is open to the public. In the event an individual wishes to provide comments, written comments must be submitted prior to the meeting. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below in advance of the meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
To meet the quality reporting requirements for hospices, as set forth in the proposed Hospice Wage Index for Fiscal Year 2012 rule, we propose that there shall be a voluntary hospice quality reporting cycle which will consist of data collection cycle beginning on October 1, 2011 and continuing through December 31, 2011. This data shall be reported to CMS by no later than January 31, 2012. There shall be a mandatory hospice quality reporting cycle which will consist of data collected from October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. This data shall be reported to CMS by no later than April 1, 2013. Thereafter, it is proposed that all subsequent hospice quality reporting cycles will be based on the calendar-year basis(that is, January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 for determination of the Hospice market basket increase factor for each Hospice in FY 2015,
We are requesting an initial approval of a data collection instrument entitled “Quality Data Submission Form” that hospice providers will use to submit quality measures data to CMS during the proposed voluntary reporting period of 10/01/2011 through 12/31/2011. This form shall be used by hospices to report quality data pertaining to one structural measure, which is entitled: Participation in a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program that Includes at Least Three Quality Indicators Related to Patient Care.
2.
Currently, there are no mandatory standardized data sets being used in LTCHs. Therefore, we have created a new data set to be used in LTCHs, which incorporates data items contained in other, well known and clinically established pressure ulcer data sets, including but not limited to the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS 3.0) and CARE data set (Continuity Assessment Records & Evaluation).
Beginning on October 1, 2012, LTCHs will begin to use a data collection document entitled the “LTCH CARE Data Set” as the vehicle by which to collect the pressure ulcer data for the LTCH quality reporting program. This data set consists of the following components: (1) Pressure ulcer documentation; (2) selected covariates related to pressure ulcers; (3) patient demographic information; and; (4) a provider attestation section. The use of the LTCH CARE Data Set is necessary in order to allow CMS to collect LTCH quality measures data in compliance with Section 3004 of the Affordable Care Act. There are no other reasonable alternatives available to CMS for the collection and submission of pressure ulcer data.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the
Joyce Strong, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3208, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9148.
In FR Doc. 2011-20575, appearing on page 50230 in the
1. On page 50231, in the second column, under the section entitled “Will there be transcripts of the meeting?” the address for the Division of Freedom of Information is corrected to read “Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.”
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for members to serve on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, Center for Tobacco Products.
FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups.
Nominations received on or before November 1, 2011 will be given first consideration for membership on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Nominations received after November 1, 2011 will be considered for nomination to the committee if nominees are still needed.
All nominations for membership should be sent electronically to
Regarding all nomination questions for membership, the primary contact is:
Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 1-877-287-1373 (choose Option 4), FAX: 240-276-3761,
Information about becoming a member on an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site by using the following link:
FDA is requesting nomination for voting members on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.
The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee) advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to the regulation of tobacco products. The Committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information and recommendations to the Commissioner.
Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among individuals knowledgeable in the fields of medicine, medical ethics, science, or technology involving the manufacture, evaluation, or use of tobacco products. Members will be invited to serve for terms of up to 4 years. The Committee shall include nine technically qualified voting members, selected by the Commissioner or designee. The nine voting members shall be physicians, dentists, scientists, or health care professionals practicing in the area of oncology, pulmonology, cardiology, toxicology, pharmacology, addiction, or any other relevant specialty.
Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the advisory committee. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a current, complete resume or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including current business address and/or home address, telephone number, and e-mail address if available. Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which the nominee recommended. Nomination must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters related to financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to 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 a meeting of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
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 because the premature disclosure of journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine and the discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of recommendations.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
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 sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, Mail Drop Room 301, 1800 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202, facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or e-mail address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4014-DR), datedAugust 12, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 12, 2011.
Dundy and Logan Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011 and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
This action terminates the appointment of Michael F. Byrne as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information: 1651-0051.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeitures and Penalties Incurred. This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Written comments should be received on or before November 1, 2011, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
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). 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:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Theresa Ritta, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, Room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of the Availability of Environmental Documents Prepared for OCS Mineral Proposals by the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), in accordance with Federal Regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), announces the availability of NEPA-related Site-Specific Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI), prepared by BOEMRE for the following oil-, gas-, and mineral-related activities proposed on the Gulf of Mexico.
Public Information Unit, Information Services Section at the number below. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 250, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, or by calling 1-800-200-GULF.
The BOEMRE prepares SEAs and FONSIs for proposals that relate to exploration, development, production, and transport of oil, gas, and mineral resources on the Federal OCS. These SEAs examine the potential environmental effects of activities described in the proposals and present BOEMRE conclusions regarding the significance of those effects. Environmental Assessments are used as a basis for determining whether or not approval of the proposals constitutes a major Federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human
Persons interested in reviewing environmental documents for the proposals listed above or obtaining information about SEAs and FONSIs prepared by the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region are encouraged to contact BOEMRE at the address or telephone listed in the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior.
Availability of revised North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction Diagram, Lease Maps, and Supplemental Official Outer Continental Shelf Block Diagrams.
Notice is hereby given that effective with this publication, the following NAD 27-based Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Official Protraction Diagram (OPD), Lease Maps, and Supplemental Official OCS Block Diagrams (SOBDs) located in the Gulf of Mexico with revision date as indicated, are now available. BOEMRE in accordance with its authority and responsibility under Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, is updating the basic records used for the description of renewable energy, mineral, and oil and gas lease sales in the geographic areas they represent. An audit of BOEMRE financial statements from 2007 identified an apparent state revenue distribution error under Section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act. In response, BOEMRE initiated a review of all 8(g) leases issued to date and discovered more errors. The two sources of the past errors are: (1) Movement of the Submerged Lands Act boundary required acreage recalculations of certain lease blocks, but the recalculations were not performed; and (2) newly prescribed mapping methods for determining equal revenue distribution amongst adjacent coastal states were not implemented. The OPD, Lease Maps, and SOBDs that required boundary and acreage adjustments were corrected in 2008. As a final correction, these documents are now revised to identify the specific action taken to resolve revenue disbursement errors.
The “Note” for SOBDs that are offshore of the States of Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama specifies: “For the purposes of revenue disbursement, revisions are made effective retroactively to April 14, 1986, the date of the 8(g) lease escrow settlement.”
The “Note” for SOBDs that are offshore of the State of Louisiana specifies: “For the purposes of revenue disbursement, revisions are made effective retroactively to October 1, 1986, the date of the 8(g) lease escrow settlement.”
The “Note” for SOBDs in the vicinity of the Texas-Louisiana “wraparound” specifies: “For the purposes of revenue disbursement, revisions are made effective retroactively to May 30, 1997, the date that the `wraparound' was erroneously removed.”
The date of 8(g) lease escrow settlement is noted because all state claims to 8(g) funds were settled before that date.
NH16-04 (Mobile)—7/01/2011.
LA1 (West Cameron Area)—7/01/2011.
LA12 (Sabine Pass Area)—7/01/2011.
7/01/2011: 765, 809, 810, 818, 819, 820, 853, 854, 861, 862, 863, 864, 897, 898, 906 and 907.
7/01/2011: 53.
7/01/2011: 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Steven Textoris, Acting Chief, Leasing Division at (703) 787-1223 or via e-mail at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. The decision approves conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in the lands described below pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
Containing 1,930 acres.
Containing 18,304 acres.
Containing 1,920 acres.
Aggregating 22,154 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until October 3, 2011 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
3. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or e-mail, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960 or by e-mail at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that in response to the Little Sandy River Protection Act of 2001, a closure to public entry is in effect on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Salem District that are within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit. Exempt from this order are BLM employees, authorized permittees, and other Federal, State, and county employees while on official business of their respective agencies, including associated vehicle use for administrative and emergency purposes.
This closure will be in effect from December 2, 2011 until further notice.
Cindy Enstrom, BLM Salem District, Cascades Resource Area Field Manager, 1717 Fabry Road, SE., Salem, Oregon 97306; e-mail:
This permanent closure affects public lands in sections 13, 14, 15, and 16, T. 2 S., R. 6 E., Willamette Meridian, Oregon, and section 13, T. 1 S., R. 5 E., Willamette Meridian, Oregon; and within the boundary of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit (BRWMU) in Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, Oregon. The public lands affected total approximately 658 acres.
The closure is in response to the Little Sandy River Protection Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-30) and provides for further water quality protection. The BRWMU is the main source of drinking water for the city of Portland, Oregon. The majority of the BRWMU is under the joint management of the U.S. Forest Service, Mount Hood National Forest, and the Portland Water Bureau. Federal regulations and City of Portland ordinances prohibit public entry onto other portions of the BRWMU. This rule will provide consistency between public lands and surrounding lands managed by other agencies.
Under the authority of Section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)), 43 CFR 8360.0-7, and 43 CFR 8364.1, the BLM will enforce the following rule:
You must not enter public lands within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit by any means of travel including, but not limited to, vehicles, off-highway vehicles, bicycles, and foot.
The following persons are exempt from this order: Federal, State, and local officers and employees in the performance of their official duties; Federal, State, and local government permittees and contractors conducting authorized activities; members of organized rescue or fire-fighting forces in the performance of their official duties; and persons with written authorization from the BLM.
Any person who violates this permanent public closure may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000, imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.
The BLM will post closure signs at main entry points to this area and take steps to install physical barriers at the BRWMU boundary. The affected lands will be represented as closed to public entry in maps, brochures, and other forms of visitor information. Maps of the affected area and other documents associated with this closure are available at the Salem District Office, 1717 Fabry Rd., SE., Salem, Oregon 97306. These documents include the Little Sandy River Protection Act and the Sandy River Basin Integrated Management Plan.
Definitions: (a) “Public lands” means any lands or interests in lands owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management; (b) “Administrative purposes” means any use by an employee or designated representative of the Federal government or one of its agents or contractors in the course of their employment or representation; and (c) “Emergency purposes” means actions related to fire, rescue, or law enforcement activities.
43 CFR 8364.1.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by October 3, 2011, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in 30 CFR 887—Subsidence insurance program grants. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 1029-0107. Regulatory authorities are required to respond to this collection to obtain a benefit.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
States and Indian tribes having an approved reclamation plan may establish, administer and operate self-sustaining State and Indian Tribe-administered programs to insure private property against damages caused by land subsidence resulting from underground mining. States and Indian tribes interested in requesting monies for their insurance programs would apply to the Director of OSM.
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on artists' canvas from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Joanna Lo (202-205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On July 14, 2011, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by ABB Inc., Cary, NC; Delta Star Inc., Lynchburg, VA; and Pennsylvania Transformer Technology Inc., Canonsburg, PA, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of large power transformers from Korea. Accordingly, effective July 14, 2011, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1189 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference 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 determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on August 29, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4526 (September 2011), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on September 1, 2010 (75 FR 53711) and determined on February 8, 2011 that it would conduct a full review (76 FR 8770, February 15, 2011). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's review 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 determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on August 29, 2011. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4254 (August 2011), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
September 9, 2011 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-847 and 849 (Second Review) (Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Japan and Romania). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before September 21, 2011.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on August 23, 2011, the United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) filed a Complaint and lodged a proposed Consent Decree in
The proposed Consent Decree resolves claims in the Complaint. Under the proposed Consent Decree, the defendants agree to provide EPA with access to the landfill property, to inspect and maintain an existing cap on the landfill property, and to execute and record a “Covenant to Restrict Use of Property—Environmental Restriction” to protect the existing cap. The execution and recordation of this Covenant will bring to completion the remedial action at the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Office of Regional Counsel, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the WISPR system. The current expiration date is October 31, 2011. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before November 1, 2011.
Submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Karen A. Staha. Telephone number: (202) 693-2917 (this is not a toll-free number). Fax: (202)693-2766. E-mail:
In July 2004, ETA solicited comments from the general public on the establishment of a single, streamlined reporting and recordkeeping system, formally called the ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system. The notice of 60-day public comment on the proposed EMILE reporting system was published in the
ETA received comments from 161 unique entities, including State workforce agencies and boards, local workforce investment areas, non-profit organizations and national associations, Native American and other Tribal organizations, public interest and advocacy groups, and other private citizens and stakeholders. Due to the large volume of comments submitted by each entity, ETA worked during calendar year 2005 to organize and analyze the public comments, make appropriate revisions to agency policy guidance on the common measures, and assess the feasibility of implementing the proposed EMILE reporting requirements in several States.
ETA reconciled the public comments and made appropriate revisions to the original EMILE proposal, which was re-named the WISPR System. This system replaced the existing quarterly reporting requirements for the following seven ETA activities: Wagner-Peyser Act, Jobs for Veterans' State Grants, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, WIA Youth, Trade Adjustment Assistance Act programs, and National Emergency Grants.
The WISPR system was piloted in two States (Pennsylvania and Texas) and both States have successfully implemented WISPR. At its foundation, the WISPR system organizes customer information, which is maintained by States in order to run their day-to-day operations. It includes the minimum level of information collection necessary to comply with Equal Opportunity requirements, hold States and grantees appropriately accountable for the Federal funds they receive, and allow the Department to fulfill its oversight and management responsibilities.
The WISPR system features a set of aggregate quarterly reports for capturing services to employer and job seeker customers, including a special aggregate report on services to the nation's eligible veterans and transitioning service members. A standardized set of participant data that includes information on demographics, types of services received, and performance outcomes based on a set of common measures defined consistently across programs is a key component of this reporting system. The WISPR system also incorporates provisions to ensure the integrity of reported data and resolve data collection and reliability issues raised by the Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office regarding the Department's ability to accurately evaluate program performance.
The implementation of WISPR was put on hold in March 2009 as ETA focused its available resources on implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The current request for information seeks to obtain comments regarding the extension of the current WISPR system. To date, the system has been fully implemented in Pennsylvania and Texas but could potentially be implemented in additional States.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 12, 2011, applicable to workers of WestPoint Home, Inc., Manufacturing Division, Greenville, Alabama and WestPoint Home, Inc., Distribution Center, Greenville, Alabama. The workers at the Manufacturing Division and the Distribution Center are engaged in employment related to the production of bedding products. The notice was published in the
At the request of a petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that workers leased from Manpower were employed on-site at the Manufacturing Division and the Distribution Center of WestPoint Home, Inc., Greenville, Alabama. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of WestPoint Home, Inc. to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Manpower working on-site at the Manufacturing Division and the Distribution Center, Greenville, Alabama location of WestPoint Home, Inc.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-75,125 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of WestPoint Home, Inc., Manufacturing Division, including on-site leased workers from Manpower, Greenville, Alabama (TA-W-75,125) and WestPoint Home, Inc., Distribution Center, including on-site leased workers from Manpower, Greenville, Alabama (TA-W-75,125A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 19, 2010 through April 12, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration on May 6, 2011, applicable to workers of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Martins Ferry, Ohio; Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Yorkville, Ohio (TA-W-71,572A); Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Mingo Junction, Ohio (TA-W-71,572B); and Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., Steubenville, Ohio (TA-W-71,572C). The workers produce a variety of steel coils. The Revised Determination was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that on July 12, 2007, a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance was issued for all workers of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, Mingo Junction, Ohio, separated from employment on or after May 31, 2006 through July 12, 2009. The notice was published in the
In order to avoid an overlay in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the June 17, 2008 impact date established for the Mingo Junction, Ohio location, TA-W-71,572B, to read July 13, 2009.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-71,572, TA-W-71,572A, TA-W-71,572B, and TA-W-71,572C are hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, Severstal Wheeling, Inc., a subsidiary of Severstal North America, Inc., currently known as RG Steel Wheeling, LLC, Mingo Junction, Ohio (TA-W-71,572B), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 13, 2009, through May 6, 2013, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 26, 2009, applicable to workers of Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc., Plant #3, Asheboro, North Carolina (TA-W-70,989) and Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc., Plant #33, Asheboro, North Carolina (TA-W-70,989A). The Department's Notice was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.
New information shows that the Milford, Iowa facility operates in conjunction with the Asheboro, North Carolina facilities. The Asheboro, North Carolina facilities supplied component parts for the Milford, Iowa facility in the assembly of furniture produced by the subject firm. Further, all workers at the Milford, Iowa facility experienced separations (total or partial), or the threat of such separations, and the subject firm's sales and production were impacted by an increase in imports of upholstered household goods.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of the Milford, Iowa facility of Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-70,989 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Klaussner Furniture Industries, Inc., Plant #3, Asheboro, North Carolina (TA-W-70,989), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 14, 2009, through two years from the date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended;” and
“All workers of Klaussner Furniture Industries, Plant #33, Asheboro, North Carolina (TA-W-70,989A), and Klaussner Corporate Services, Inc., also known as Klaussner of Iowa, a division of Furniture Industries, Inc., Milford, Iowa (TA-W-70,989B) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 2, 2009, through two years from the date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of August 15, 2011 through August 19, 2011.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers'separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in theworkers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possessskills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers'industry (
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not beenmet.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as requiredfor certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigationswere issued because the petitioner has requested that thepetition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigationswere issued because the petitioning groups of workers arecovered by active certifications. Consequently, furtherinvestigation in these cases would serve no purpose sincethe petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by morethan one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of August 15, 2011 through August 19, 2011. Copies of these determinations may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may be submitted by fax, courier services, or mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 or
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor underSection 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and areidentified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of thesepetitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at theaddress shown below, not later than September 12, 2011.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the addressshown below, not later than September 12, 2011.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
On April 6, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico (subject firm). The Notice was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previouslyconsidered that the determination complained ofwas erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained ofwas based on a mistake in the determination of factsnot previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met because no workers were totally or partially separated, or threatened with such separation, during the one year period before the petition date (January 21, 2011).
In request for reconsideration, the State of New Mexico workforce agent asserted that “at least 4 workers were separated during the one year period prior to the petition date” and provided four support documents (“Separation Agreement and Release” related to Louis Reynolds; “Notice to Employees” which is part of the “Separation Agreement and Release”; “Signatures” which is part of the “Separation Agreement and Release”; and “Support Documentation”) provided by Louis Reynolds.
The “Separation Agreement and Release” document established that Louis Reynolds was separated from employment with Flowserve Corporation (Flowserve) on January 25, 2010.
The “Notice to Employees” document identifies four individuals in the “Charlotte, NC facility” selected for separation and has a handwritten note that Louis Reynolds is one of the individuals.
The “Signatures” document shows that Louis Reynolds signed the “Separation Agreement and Release” on March 4, 2010.
The fourth document is a narrative by Mr. Reynolds about the closure of the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility on March 31, 2009; his reassignment to Vernon, California in October 2009; his weekly commute to and from Albuquerque, New Mexico and Vernon, California during October 2009 through January 2010; and his separation from employment with Flowserve on January 25, 2010.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted the State of New Mexico workforce agent who filed both the petition and the request for reconsideration for clarification. The Department also contacted Flowserve for clarification of previously-submitted information and additional information.
The State of New Mexico workforce agent confirmed that his intent in filing the Trade Adjustment Assistance petition and the request for reconsideration was to assist Mr. Reynolds.
Flowserve confirmed that production at the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility ceased in May 2009, that all production employees were separated in July 2009, and that all non-production employees were reassigned to the Vernon, California facility during August-September 2009. Flowserve also confirmed that by January 2010, there were no workers at the Albuquerque, New Mexico facility.
Flowserve also clarified that although Mr. Reynolds was reassigned from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Charlotte, North Carolina in June 2009, he assisted with the closure of the New Mexico facility until the end of July 2009 and worked at Vernon, California from August 2009 until he was separated from Flowserve.
The reconsideration investigation also confirmed that neither the Vernon, California facility nor the Charlotte, North Carolina facility of Flowserve employed workers who are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
After a careful review of previously-submitted information and additional information obtained by the Department during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that there was no worker group at Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico during the investigation period. Therefore, no workers were totally or partially separated from employment at Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, or threatened with such separation. Further, the Department determines that there was no mistake in fact and no misinterpretation of the facts or the law.
After careful consideration of the administrative record, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Flowserve Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Sandy Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey (subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previouslyconsidered that the determination complained ofwas erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained ofwas based on a mistake in the determination of factsnot previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justifiedreconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the findings that the petitioning worker group did not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied new information regarding an alleged shift in production to China.
A careful review of the administrative record and additional information obtained by the Department during the reconsideration investigation confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to, nor acquire from, a foreign country articles that are like or directly competitive with articles produced by the subject firm.
Further, during the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed previously-submitted information and determined that there was no mistake in fact and no misinterpretation of the facts or the law.
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Sandy Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey.
On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of International Business Machines (IBM), Software Group Business Unit, Optim Data Studio Tools QA, San Jose, California (subject firm). The Department's Notice was published in the
The negative determination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance petition filed by a State of California workforce agent on behalf of workers at the subject firm was based on the Department's finding that Criterion (1) has not been met because the Department did not find that a significant number or proportion of the workers at IBM, Software Group Business Unit, Optim Data Studio Tools QA, San Jose, California was totally or partially separated, or threatened with separation.
29 CFR 90 defines “significant number or proportion of the workers” to mean “(a) In most cases, the total or partial separations, or both, in a firm or appropriate subdivision thereof, are the equivalent to a total of unemployment of five percent (5 percent) of the workers or 50 workers, whichever is less; or (b) At least three workers in a firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers.”
In his request for reconsideration, a worker stated that “I was an employee of Information Management Group where * * * over 100+ employees have been let go from this particular group * * * In my specific HPU group (High Performance Unload tooling group) I was the only full time employee working in the U.S.A. validating the quality of this produce running Acceptance testing.” The request for reconsideration included a diagram that shows that “HPU tooling” is a group within “Information Management,” which is a unit within the “Software Division” of IBM.
New information obtained from the subject firm during the reconsideration investigation shows that the Optim Data Studio Tools QA unit is a subset of the Quality Assurance Group, which is part of the Software Group Business Unit of IBM, and that the HPU Tooling Group is a project handled by members of the Quality Assurance Group rather than a distinct subgroup of IBM. As such, the Department determines that the subject worker group consists of workers of IBM, Software Group Business Unit, Quality Assurance Group, San Jose, California.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received information that there was only one worker separation within the subject worker group and that no workers of the subject worker group was threatened with separation (partial or total), as defined by 29 CFR 90. Rather, the new information obtained during the reconsideration investigation revealed that employment within the Quality Assurance Group (San Jose, California facility) increased in 2010 from 2009 levels.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
After careful review of the administrative record and new information collected during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that, in light of the new information, the determination complained of is not erroneous; that the determination complained of is not based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; and that there has not been a misinterpretation of facts or of the law.
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for
By application received July 14, 2011, a worker requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers HealthLink, a Wellpoint, Inc. Company, Accounts Receivable and Collections Division, St. Louis, Missouri (HealthLink-Accounts Receivable Collections Division). The negative determination was issued on June 21, 2011. The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
The petition was filed on behalf of “finance” workers at HealthLink, St. Louis, Missouri (HealthLink). The petition states that the service supplied by HealthLink is a “network of providers through contracts to payors—insurers and third party administrators” and that “production has been/is being sent to India and services are being outsourced to India.”
The negative determination was based on the Department's findings that HealthLink does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b) of the Act. In order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf certification is being sought) must work for a “firm” or appropriate subdivision that produces an article.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that subject worker group separations were due to a shift to India and stated that “other Wellpoint petitions for several other locations of Financial Operation departments” have worker groups eligible to apply for TAA.
The determinations referenced in the request for reconsideration are Wellpoint, Inc., Financial Operations Recovery Department (TA-W-74,661 through TA-W-74,661H; issued on January 7, 2011).
Workers covered by TA-W-74,661 were eligible to apply for worker adjustment assistance because the worker group eligibility requirements of the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act of 2009 (Trade Act of 2009) was satisfied. Specifically, the Department determined that there was a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the supply of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers' firm and that the shift of services abroad contributed importantly to worker group separations.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
After the Trade Act of 2009 expired in February 2011, petitions for TAA were instituted under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 (Trade Act of 2002). Therefore, the statute applicable to TA-W-80,213 is the Trade Act of 2002. The applicable regulation is codified in 29 CFR 90, subpart B.
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 2002 establishes the worker group eligibility requirements. The requirements include either “imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased” or “a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision.”
The request for reconsideration asserts that workers separated at the HealthLink, St. Louis, Missouri facility are similar to workers covered by “other locations of Financial Operation departments that have been approved.”
The certification for TA-W-74,661 was issued based on the Department's findings that the workers' firm supplied a service and that the supply of services was shifted to a foreign country. The shift of services that was the basis for certification under the Trade Act of 2009 cannot be the basis for certification under the Trade Act of 2002 because the two statutes have different worker group eligibility criteria.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, previously submitted materials, the applicable statute, and relevant regulation, the Department determines that there is no new information, mistake in fact, or misinterpretation of the facts or of the law.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
On June 6, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Reynolds Food Packaging LLC, a subsidiary of Reynolds Group Holding Limited, Grove City, Pennsylvania (subject firm). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to the production of disposable food service containers and bulk sheet.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received new information that revealed that there
Criterion I has been met because a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated.
Criterion II has been met because there has been a shift in production of disposable food service containers and bulk sheet by the subject firm to a foreign country.
Criterion III has been met because the shift in production to a foreign country contributed importantly to worker group separations at the subject firm.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers and former workers of the subject firm, who are engaged in employment related to the production of disposable food service containers or bulk sheet, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Reynolds Food Packaging LLC, a subsidiary of Reynolds Group Holding Limited, Grove City, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 26, 2010, through two years from the date of this revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
On June 28, 2011, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Sony Music Holdings, Inc. (“SMHI”), d/b/a Sony DADC Americas, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, including on-site leased workers from Employment Plus, Aerotek, and Robert Half, Pitman, New Jersey (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. The Department's Notice was published in the
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received new information that revealed that the subject firm shifted to a foreign country a portion of the production of articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the subject firm workers.
Criterion I has been met because a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm have become totally or partially separated or are threatened with such separation.
Criterion II has been met because the subject firm shifted to a foreign country a portion of the production of articles like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the subject firm workers.
Criterion III has been met because the shift in production contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation at the subject firm.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I determine that workers and former workers of the subject firm, who are engaged in employment related to the production of optical discs containing content, meet the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of Sony Music Holdings, Inc. (“SMHI”), d/b/a Sony DADC Americas, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, including on-site leased workers from Employment Plus, Aerotek, and Robert Half, Pitman, New Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 7, 2010, through two years from the date of this revised certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards codified in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances on or before October 3, 2011.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the receptionist's desk on the 21st floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that: (1) An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or (2) That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of MACOSH Meeting.
The Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) was established under Section 7 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 to advise the Secretary of Labor, through the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, on issues relating to occupational safety and health in the maritime industries. The purpose of this
Written statements and requests to speak, including personal information provided, will be placed in the public docket and may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
All MACOSH Committee and workgroup meetings are open to the public. All interested persons are invited to attend the full MACOSH Committee and its workgroup meetings at the time and place listed above. The tentative agenda will include discussions on: person in water (man overboard); cargo-handling equipment; confined space ventilation; selection of welding-shade protection; safe entry and cleaning practices in vessel sewage tanks; best practices for eye injury reduction; toxic materials; and injury and illness prevention programs.
The workgroups will meet from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. on September 20, 2011 (rooms to be determined upon arrival). The workgroups will discuss topics on which they may focus for the duration of the current Committee charter. The full MACOSH Committee will meet September 21, 2011 (room to be determined upon arrival).
Interested parties may also submit written statements, including data and other information, using any one of the methods listed in the
David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), and 29 CFR part 1912.
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice, request for comments, collection of information.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. By this notice, IMLS is soliciting comments concerning a primary reference source of reliable, comprehensive data on the museum sector and to provide the public, policy makers, researchers and the museum field itself with quality data for strategic decision-making.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
Send comments to: Kim Miller, Management Analyst, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M St., NW., Washington, DC 20036.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is an independent Federal grant-making agency and is the primary source of Federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. IMLS provides a variety of grant programs to assist the Nation's museums and libraries in improving their operations and enhancing their services to the public. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for, and trends of, museum and library services funded by IMLS; reporting on the impact and effectiveness of programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS in addressing such needs; and identifying, and disseminating information on, the best practices of such programs. (20 U.S.C. Chapter 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108)
The purpose of the information collection is to develop a searchable museum portal for use by museums, libraries, museum and library professionals, IMLS, policy makers, researchers, and the general public. Information such as name, address, phone, e-mail, Web site, congressional district, and geographic location would be collected. The proposed information collection, which is the subject of this notice, would establish a comprehensive, reliable database about the size, distribution and scope of the museum sector in the U.S.
Kim Miller, Management Analysis, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has submitted the following public information collection request
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316, within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
This request is for clearance of the Annual Arts Benchmarking Survey (AABS) to be conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as a supplement to the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Current Population Survey. The AABS would be conducted for the first time in February 2013, and annually thereafter in years that the National Endowment's Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) is not conducted. One of the strengths of the AABS survey is that it will both complement and supplement the information collected in the SPPA. The SPPA is the field's premiere repeated cross-sectional survey of individual attendance and involvement in arts and cultural activity, and conducted approximately every five years. The AABS questionnaire will be much shorter than the SPPA, consisting of ten to twelve questions that will be used to track arts participation over time. As with the SPPA, the AABS data will be circulated to interested researchers and will be the basis for a range of NEA reports and independent research publications. The AABS will provide annual primary knowledge on the extent and nature of participation in the arts in the United States.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 3, 2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Chad Whiteman, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0132), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly available documents, including the final supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 3, 2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Chad Whiteman, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0135), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
The NRC Clearance Officer is Tremaine Donnell, 301-415-6258.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Merit System Audit and Compliance, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an existing information collection request (ICR) 3206-0234, Standard Form 1153, Claim for Unpaid Compensation of Deceased Civilian Employee. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;