National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
Minority Business Development Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
United States Sentencing Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
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.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC) is adopting regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act (Act or CEA) that establish the process for the registration of swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs, and collectively with SDs, Swaps Entities) and that require Swaps Entities to become and remain members of a registered futures association (RFA). The Commission is also adopting regulations that define an “associated person” of an SD or MSP as a natural person and that implement the prohibition on a Swaps Entity permitting an associated person who is statutorily disqualified from registration from effecting or being involved in effecting swaps on behalf of the Swaps Entity. The Commission is adopting these regulations in accordance with section 4s of the CEA, which was recently added to the CEA by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
Effective March 19, 2012.
Barbara S. Gold, Associate Director, Christopher W. Cummings, Special Counsel, or Elizabeth Miller, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone number: (202) 418-6700 and electronic mail:
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act.
In furtherance of the foregoing legislative goals, Dodd-Frank Act section 721(a) amended the definitions of various existing terms in the CEA and added definitions of numerous new terms to the CEA, including definitions of the new terms “swap dealer,” “major swap participant,” and “associated person of a swap dealer or major swap participant.”
CEA sections 4s(a) and 4s(b)
(a) REGISTRATION.—
(1) SWAP DEALERS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a swap dealer unless the person is registered as a swap dealer with the Commission.
(2) MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a major swap participant unless the person is registered as a major swap participant with the Commission.
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A person shall register as a swap dealer or major swap participant by filing a registration application with the Commission.
(2) CONTENTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The application shall be made in such form and manner as prescribed by the Commission, and shall contain such information, as the Commission considers necessary concerning the business in which the applicant is or will be engaged.
CEA section 4s does not direct the Commission to adopt rules that provide for the registration of associated persons of SDs or MSPs. However, CEA section 4s(b)(6) makes it unlawful for a Swaps Entity to permit a person to associate with it if the person is subject to a statutory disqualification, as follows:
Except to the extent otherwise specifically provided by rule, regulation, or order, it shall be unlawful for a swap dealer or major swap participant to permit any person associated with a swap dealer or major swap participant who is subject to a statutory disqualification to effect or be involved in effecting swaps on behalf of the swap dealer or major swap participant, if the swap dealer or major swap participant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the statutory disqualification.
CEA section 4s further directs the Commission to provide for the regulation of SDs and MSPs with respect to, among others, the following areas: Capital and margin, reporting and recordkeeping, daily trading records, business conduct standards, documentation standards, duties, designation of chief compliance officer,
Additionally, Dodd-Frank Act section 716 prohibits an insured depository institution (IDI) from receiving Federal assistance if it is also an SD that engages in swaps activities that are not covered by the exclusion in section 716(d).
(a) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), no Federal assistance may be provided to any swaps entity with respect to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the swaps entity.
Dodd-Frank Act section 716(d) carves out certain swaps activities of an IDI that is an SD, and therefore a “swaps entity,” from the prohibition against “Federal assistance.” In particular, the prohibition against Federal assistance does not apply to the extent the IDI SD engages in: (1) Hedging and other risk-mitigating activities of the IDI; or (2) acting as an SD for swaps and security-based swaps involving rates (
(c) AFFILIATES OF INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.—The prohibition on Federal assistance contained in subsection (a) does not apply to and shall not prevent an insured depository institution from having or establishing an affiliate which is a swaps entity, as long as such insured depository institution is part of a bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company, that is supervised by the Federal Reserve and such swaps entity affiliate complies with sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and such other requirements as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission * * * may determine to be necessary and appropriate.
To fulfill the statutory mandates contained in CEA sections 4s(a) and 4s(b), the Commission proposed amendments to existing Regulations 3.2, 3.4, 3.10, 3.21, 3.30, 3.31 and 3.33
In the section-by-section analysis of the regulations contained in the Proposal, the Commission specifically requested comment on whether it should restrict the definition of an associated person of a Swaps Entity to a natural person, and how to best implement the statutory disqualification prohibition in CEA section 4s(b)(6).
The Commission received numerous comments on the Proposal. Commenters include domestic banks, foreign banks, companies engaged in various energy businesses, trade and public interest associations (energy, international banking, securities, and swaps), the National Futures Association (NFA, currently the only RFA), and both United States (U.S.) and foreign citizens. The Commission received several requests for clarification on and enhancements to its contemplated registration process for Swaps Entities, and the final regulations adopted today do contain some revisions to the Proposal. In consideration of the comments received, the Commission is adopting the Proposal mainly in the form as issued, with specific changes as discussed below.
As stated in the Proposal:
The term “associated person” in the context of existing Commission registrants is not defined in the CEA. That term is defined in the Commission's regulations. Specifically, Regulation 1.3(aa) provides that “[T]his term [
The comments the Commission received in response to this request were unanimous in their support of such a restriction. The Commission is amending Regulation 1.3(aa) to include in the “associated person” definition provided for thereunder a natural person associated with an SD or MSP as a partner, officer, employee or agent (or functionally similar role) in a capacity that involves the solicitation or acceptance of swaps, or the supervision of persons so engaged. Specifically, this definition is now found in new Regulation 1.3(aa)(6).
The Commission proposed the adoption of new Regulation 23.22 to implement the statutory prohibition in CEA section 4s(b)(6) against an SD or MSP permitting a person associated with it who is subject to a statutory disqualification to effect or be involved in effecting swaps on behalf of the SD or MSP, if the SD or MSP “knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, of the statutory disqualification.” In the proposed regulation, paragraph (a) defined the term “person” as a shorthand substitute for the statutory term “associated person of a swap dealer or major swap participant,” and paragraph (b) restated the statutory prohibition without exception. The Commission proposed that an SD or MSP would be responsible for ensuring that its associated persons are not subject to a statutory disqualification. The Commission also requested comment on implementing the statutory prohibition.
The Commission in its request focused on how an SD or MSP could conduct background checks or otherwise fulfill the requirement to ensure that persons subject to a statutory disqualification would not effect or be involved in effecting swaps on its behalf. The sole comment that the Commission received on this issue expressed the view that the Commission allow, but not require, Swaps Entities to use NFA for this vetting purpose.
One commenter on the implementation of the statutory prohibition
The statutory prohibition in CEA section 4s(b)(6) applies “except to the extent otherwise specifically provided by rule, regulation, or order.” The Commission recognizes that if it did not provide an exception as suggested, a person could be permitted to direct futures-related activities or solicit futures-related business with members of the retail public—
The same commenter also recommended that the Commission expand Regulation 3.12(f), or adopt a new regulation, “to address the situations in which an individual conducts swaps-related activity on behalf of more than one Swap Entity or conducts swaps activity on behalf of a Swap Entity and is also registered as an AP of a different firm.”
The Commission proposed a provisional registration process for SDs and MSPs that would take into account, through phased implementation, the strong likelihood that the Commission would adopt the Section 4s Implementing Regulations subsequent to issuing the registration process regulations for SDs and MSPs. As the Commission explained in the Proposal, phased implementation is aimed at preserving the “continuity of the business operations of existing swaps entities, and to avoid undue market disruption,” by permitting applicants to continue swaps activities pending confirmation of initial compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations and notification of registration. In addition, the final regulations make clear that provisional registration will be granted upon filing of the application and any documentation required under the applicable Section 4s Implementing Regulation—and not upon NFA's review and approval of the documentation.
Several commenters stressed the need for phased implementation over extended periods of time so that SDs and MSPs can come into compliance after evaluating the need,
The Commission believes that the provisional registration process adopted today is consistent with the incremental staging requested by commenters. Thus, the Commission is declining to extend the effectiveness of any Section 4s Implementing Regulation today. Moreover, to provide the maximum amount of processing time, so that applicants for SD or MSP registration can be registered at the earliest possible date, and in the absence of any comments to the contrary, the Commission has adopted, as proposed, Regulation 3.10(a)(1)(v), which permits applicants to begin the registration process in advance of the effective date of the requirement to register as an SD or MSP.
In the Proposal, the Commission provided for provisional registration with reference to the Dodd-Frank Act's general statutory effective date of July 16, 2011, and CEA section 4s(b), which requires the Commission to issue regulations providing for the registration of Swaps Entities not later than one year after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, or July 21, 2011. After issuing the Proposal, the Commission issued effective date clarification of, as well as specific exemptive relief from compliance with, numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (Effective Date Release).
Moreover, in response to a commenter requesting clarification on provisional registration
The Commission proposed in Regulation 3.2(c)(3) to require NFA to notify the applicant for SD or MSP registration “that it is provisionally registered pending completion of a fitness review by the National Futures Association.”
As proposed and as adopted, Regulation 3.10(a)(1)(i) provides that application for registration as an SD or MSP will commence with the filing of a Form 7-R with NFA—which is also how, under Regulation 3.10(a)(1)(i), the registration process commences for applicants for registration as an FCM, RFED, IB, CPO, CTA, or LTM.
Further with respect to Regulation 3.10, the Commission notes that paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) were inadvertently dropped from the regulation in connection with the adoption of the regulatory program of the Commission for RFEDs.
The Commission also proposed to require applicants for registration as an SD or MSP “to demonstrate compliance” with such of the Section 4s Implementing Regulations in effect at the time of their application. At the suggestion of a commenter, the Commission has adopted in Regulation 3.10(a)(1)(v)(A) the requirement that the Form 7-R must be accompanied by “such documentation as may be required to demonstrate compliance” with each applicable Section 4s Implementing Regulation.
Thus, for example, to determine with which Section 4s Implementing Regulations an applicant must demonstrate compliance as part of the registration process, the applicant should look to the Section 4s Implementing Regulations themselves to determine precisely when compliance is required for each. For example, the Section 4s Implementing Regulations for External Business Conduct Standards require compliance on the later of 180 days after the effective date of those regulations or the date on which swap dealers or major swap participants are required to apply for registration pursuant to Regulation 3.10.
Two commenters asked the Commission what documentation is required of an applicant for SD or MSP registration.
The regulations the Commission proposed and is adopting also address, in Regulation 3.10(a)(1)(v)(D)(
EFFECT ON SWAPS.—Unless specifically reserved in the applicable swap, neither the enactment of the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, nor any requirement under that Act or an amendment made by that Act, shall constitute a termination event, force majeure, illegality, increased costs, regulatory change, or similar event under a swap (including any related credit support arrangement) that would permit a party to terminate, renegotiate, modify, amend, or supplement 1 or more transactions under the swap.
To address comments requesting clarification of the effect of provisional registration on the general registration process for SDs and MSPs,
In this regard, the Commission expects that NFA will promptly perform these reviews and, as the Commission intends to state in the Notice and Order, NFA will be required to perform these registration processing functions in accordance with the standards established by the CEA and the Commission's regulations and to follow the same procedures with respect to recordkeeping, disclosure and tracking of fitness investigations and adverse action proceedings concerning SDs and MSPs as it must follow in cases involving other registrants. Thus, for example, notwithstanding that it has notified an applicant for registration as an SD or MSP that it is provisionally registered, NFA may subsequently take an action to deny the registration application based on the statutory disqualification of one of the applicant's principals.
Another commenter requested that the Commission consider separate sets of regulations for SDs and MSPs.
As part
The Commission also requested comment on who should be responsible for determining initial and ongoing compliance by Swaps Entities with respect to the Section 4s Implementing Regulations and all other applicable requirements. The Commission suggested three alternatives: no delegation to any person, full delegation to NFA (or any association that may be subsequently registered as a futures association), and partial delegation to NFA (or any subsequent RFA).
Option number one would involve the Commission being directly responsible for ensuring compliance by swaps entities with all requirements applicable to them under the CEA and Commission regulations. Option number two would involve NFA (or any other association that may subsequently be registered as a futures association) being responsible for ensuring compliance, subject to Commission oversight. Option number three would involve certain compliance oversight activities being performed by the Commission and others being delegated to NFA (or a subsequently registered futures association). The Commission requests comment on these options. In the case of option number three, commenters should specify which oversight activities should be performed by the Commission and which should be delegated to, or performed by NFA (or another registered futures association).
75 FR at 71382.
One commenter favored no delegation, arguing that “[t]he fundamental duty to determine initial and continuing compliance to qualify for registration is entrusted to and must remain with the CFTC.”
Another commenter requested that if the Commission adopted the partial delegation model, it clearly define the responsibilities delegated to NFA, and, in this regard, asked that the Commission clarify certain of its registration process proposals.
In response to these comments, in recognition of NFA's proven track record in performing analogous functions for all other Commission registrants, and consistent with past practice,
The Commission recognizes that the operations, activities and transactions engaged in by SDs and MSPs have not previously been subject to an extensive regulatory framework. Ideally, and as one commenter suggested, the Commission would retain direct responsibility, at least initially, for confirming compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations.
Going forward, the Commission expects that NFA, as it has for its other members in connection with the discharge of its RFA responsibilities under CEA section 17, will adopt rules for its SD and MSP members that are the same as, or more stringent than, the Section 4s Implementing Regulations, and that NFA will engage in active oversight of its SD and MSP members to monitor and ensure compliance with those rules.
As for the standard of review to which RFA rules are subject, section 17(j) further provides that:
The Commission shall approve such rules if such rules are determined by the Commission to be consistent with the requirements of this section and not otherwise in violation of this Act or the regulations issued pursuant to this Act, and the Commission shall disapprove, after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing, any such rule which the Commission determines at any time to be inconsistent with the requirements of this section or in violation of this Act or the regulations issued pursuant to this Act.
If the Commission does not approve or institute disapproval proceedings with respect to any rule within one hundred and eighty days after receipt or within such longer period of time as the [RFA] may agree to, or if the Commission does not conclude a disapproval proceeding with respect to any rule within one year after receipt or within such longer period as the [RFA] may agree to, such rule may be made effective by the [RFA] until such time as the Commission disapproves such rule * * *.
However, and consistent with the Notice and Order the Commission intends to issue, adoption by the Commission of Regulation 170.16 requiring membership in an RFA by SD and MSP registrants and adoption by NFA of rules for its SD and MSP members does not affect the authority of the Commission to adopt and enforce regulations applicable to SDs and MSPs as Commission registrants and to conduct on-site examinations of the operations and activities of SDs and MSPs as Commission registrants.
The Commission has, in the past, issued written guidance to NFA regarding the exercise of delegated authority.
As is noted above, in the Proposal, the Commission requested comment on the extraterritorial application of the SD and MSP registration requirements. The Commission has determined to limit this final rulemaking to the process of registration. Issues relating to which
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Reg Flex Act) requires federal agencies to consider the impact of its rules on “small entities.”
In this regard, the Commission explained in the Proposal that it previously had determined that FCMs should not be considered to be small entities for purposes of the Reg Flex Act, based, in part, upon FCMs' obligation to meet the minimum financial requirements established by the Commission to enhance the protection of customers' segregated funds and protect the financial condition of FCMs generally.
The Commission further explained that it had also previously determined that large traders are not small entities for Reg Flex Act purposes, with the Commission considering the size of a trader's position to be the only appropriate test for the purpose of large trader reporting.
In response to the Proposal, one commenter, representing a number of market participants, submitted a comment related to the Reg Flex Act, stating that “[e]ach of the complex and interrelated regulations currently being proposed by the Commission has both an individual, and a cumulative, effect on [certain] small entities,” and that “the vast majority of [our] members meet the definition of `small entities' under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.”.
This commenter did not provide any information on how the Proposal may have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Nonetheless, the Commission has reevaluated this rulemaking in light of the statements made to it by this commenter. After further consideration of those statements, the Commission has again determined that this final rulemaking, which is applicable to SDs and MSPs, will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small businesses.
In terms of affecting a substantial number of small entities, as is noted above, the Commission is statutorily required to exempt from designation as an SD those entities that engage in a
In terms of having a significant economic effect, in the experience of the Commission, complying with the registration process regulations has not had a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. Notably, Regulation 3.10, containing the same registration requirements as those being issued today for SDs and MSPs, has been applicable to IBs and CTAs
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Proposal and the additional rationale provided above, the Commission continues to believe that the SD and MSP registration process rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the regulations being published today by this
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Commission submitted the Proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission requested that OMB approve and assign a new control number for the collection of information covered by the Proposal. The title for this collection of information is “Registration of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants.” OMB has assigned OMB control number 3038-0072 to the Information Collection Request (ICR) in connection with the Proposal, but OMB has not yet approved the ICR. The OMB control number will not appear in the active inventory until OMB grants approval.
Under the regulations that the Commission is adopting today, Swaps Entities that must register with the Commission will be obligated to file, periodically review and update certain registration forms. Responses to the collection of information contained within these final regulations are mandatory, and the Commission will protect proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act
In the Proposal, the Commission estimated that there would be 300 “Respondents/Affected Entities” (respondents) and that the “respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response for the Form 7-R; 0.4 hours per response for the Form 8-R; 3 minutes per response for the Form 7-W; 6 minutes per response for the Form 8-T; and 3 minutes per response for the Form 3-R.”
The Commission invited the public and other federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting and recordkeeping burdens discussed above. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), the Commission solicited comments in order to: (1) Evaluate 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) evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) determine whether there are ways to 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 able to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB commented on the ICR in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(c), questioning the burden hours estimated, which appeared to OMB to be low. OMB stated that the Commission should consider the comments it received on the Proposal, if any, to determine if the burden hours estimated should be revised.
The Commission received one other comment on its PRA discussion in the Proposal. This commenter stated in its letter that, “[a]lthough the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the release accompanying the Proposed Regulations (the `Release') suggests that it will merely take a matter of minutes for Swaps Entities to complete the forms required by the Proposed Regulations, we are dubious that this is accurate.”
Generally, these forms request only the information about an applicant and its principals necessary for the Commission to appropriately exercise its statutory registration and compliance oversight functions with respect to them. This information generally includes the names, addresses, location of records, regulatory and disciplinary histories, and other similarly straightforward matters—all of which should be in the possession of the applicant and readily available for the applicant to provide. However, some Swaps Entities may be unfamiliar with the current registration process and the Forms 7-R and 8-R that they must complete in order to apply for registration as an SD or MSP.
The PRA estimates provided for these forms are averages that do not necessarily reflect the actual time to be expended by each and every person to complete the forms. The Commission's estimates do not account significantly for the amount of time it would take to complete the regulatory and disciplinary history sections of Forms 7-R and 8-R, which impose the greatest burden on persons completing the forms where the applicant SD or MSP (including a principal thereof) has an extensive criminal or disciplinary history. The Commission believes such SDs and MSPs will generally not be applying for registration in the first place because they will likely be disqualified from registration pursuant to CEA section 8a(2) or 8a(3). In addition, these forms will be completed in an online, user-friendly process developed by NFA, the Commission's delegee pursuant to CEA section 8a(10), which process currently is used by all
Moreover, in proposing and adopting regulations applicable to the registration of Swaps Entities, the Commission has made every effort to establish a process that is minimally disruptive to the swap markets and minimally burdensome to Swaps Entities. In so doing, and as it proposed, the Commission is incorporating the registration process for Swaps Entities into the existing regulatory scheme for all other Commission registrants under Part 3—as opposed to constructing a fundamentally new registration structure for Swaps Entities. While current registrants may be familiar with this scheme, some Swaps Entities will not have previously applied for registration with the Commission, and the revised burden estimates take the potential unfamiliarity of new applicants for registration into account.
The forms that Swaps Entities will be required to complete are virtually identical to those forms that other Commission registrants must currently complete, including RFEDs, who became subject to the Commission's registration requirements in 2010. There is, however, an additional requirement to which Swaps Entities will be subject in connection with completing the Form 7-R. CEA section 4s(b)(6) prohibits a Swaps Entity, except to the extent otherwise provided by rule, regulation or order,
As part of the registration process, the regulations being adopted today require Swaps Entities to demonstrate initial compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations as the Commission adopts these regulations in order to obtain registration. However, because the Section 4s Implementing Regulations are not yet final, and because they will be phased in over time after the Commission adopts the registration process regulations today, the Commission is unable to estimate burden hours in connection with producing or collecting the documentation required to demonstrate compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations. Consequently, the PRA estimates for this registration process rulemaking only include time to be expended by applicants' and registrants' personnel to complete the forms, and do not include time to be expended to collect, produce or otherwise develop the documentation required to demonstrate compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations. The Commission has estimated the burden hours associated with information collections in connection with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations in the rulemakings proposing those regulations, and those burden hours need not be replicated here.
In the Proposal, the Commission took “a conservative approach” to calculating the burden hours of this information collection by estimating that as many as 300 persons would come within the SD or MSP definition and, thus, would be subject to registration with the Commission.
The Commission is permitted to collect registration fees under CEA section 8a(1). These registration fees are established by NFA as the Commission's delegee under CEA section 8a(10). NFA has not yet adopted, and the Commission has not yet approved, an NFA rule setting forth registration fees for SDs and MSPs, although NFA currently estimates that such Swaps Entity registration fee will be $15,000.
For the reasons outlined above, the Commission has determined to revise the burden hour estimates for this information collection as follows. The burden associated with the new regulations implementing the registration process for SDs and MSPs is estimated to be 629 hours, assuming 125 respondents, which will result from: (1) Application for registration by SDs and MSPs and submission of required information on behalf of their respective principals; (2) initially, no withdrawals from registration by SDs or MSPs and a relatively small decrease in the number of their respective principals; and (3) initially, no reported corrections. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency.
The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response for the Form 7-R; 0.8 hours per response for the Form 8-R; 0.1 hours per response for the Form 7-W; 0.2 hours per response for the Form 8-T; and 0.1 hours per response for the Form 3-R. These estimates include the time needed: To review instructions; to
This final rulemaking implements provisions of the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, mandating the registration of Swaps Entities. CEA section 4s(a) makes it unlawful for a person to act as an SD or MSP unless it is registered with the Commission. CEA section 4s(b) requires an SD or MSP to apply for registration in accordance with such form and manner as the Commission may prescribe. To effectuate the Congressional directive, this final rulemaking: Details the registration process for SDs and MSPs; requires Swaps Entities to become and remain members of an RFA; and implements the prohibition against a Swaps Entity permitting a statutorily disqualified associated person from effecting or being involved in effecting swaps on behalf of the Swaps Entity.
CEA section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating regulations. The Commission must evaluate costs and benefits in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations.
Before adopting these registration process regulations for Swaps Entities, the Commission sought public comment on the Proposal, including comment on the costs and benefits of the Proposal.
The Commission believes that the benefits of this final rulemaking are considerable even if not quantifiable. Registration, as mandated by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act, will enable the Commission to increase market integrity and protect market participants and the public by identifying the universe of SDs and MSPs subject to heightened regulatory requirements and oversight in connection with their swaps activities. This rulemaking identifies the process to commence registration by an SD or MSP, specifies the applicable registration forms, and explains how SDs and MSPs should apply for registration. The Commission believes that this final rulemaking's specification of a registration process for SDs and MSPs administered by an RFA leverages the RFA's existing expertise and economies of scale and scope.
Further, and as is discussed above,
The Commission has identified and considered several costs associated with this rulemaking. First, an SD or MSP must pay fees to register with the Commission through NFA. Second, because this rulemaking requires a registrant to become and remain a member of an RFA—and NFA is currently the only RFA—Swaps Entities will incur the costs of annual NFA membership dues. Third, NFA is expected to incur expenses for executing the anticipated delegated registration process function on the Commission's behalf and for monitoring compliance by its SD and MSP members with NFA rules.
The Commission is obligated to estimate the burden of and provide supporting statements for any collection of information it seeks to establish under considerations contained in the PRA, and seek approval of those requirements from OMB. Therefore, the estimated burden and support of the collection of information in this rulemaking, as well as consideration of the comments thereto, are discussed in the PRA section of this rulemaking as required by that statute.
Based on current estimates from NFA, the Commission believes that SDs and MSPs will incur the following registration fees: (a) $15,000 per SD or MSP registration application, which will include the initial determination by NFA of compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations;
Based on current estimates from NFA, the Commission believes that SDs and MSPs will incur annual NFA membership dues ranging from $125,000 to $1,000,000 per member, based upon the size and complexity of the firm's swap business.
Concurrently with the adoption of these regulations, the Commission intends to issue the Notice and Order, whereby it will delegate to an RFA—
Consistent with the current regulatory practice for Commission registrants who are NFA members, NFA will be responsible for monitoring compliance with NFA rules applicable to its members who are SDs and MSPs.
NFA's regulatory program for the oversight of Swaps Entities will entail significant costs. Based on an assumption of 125 SD and MSP members, NFA estimates that the annual cost of this regulatory program when it is fully staffed and operational in approximately three years will be approximately $35-$45 million.
By delegating the authority to perform the registration functions for SDs and MSPs to an RFA, the Commission will avoid the expense of establishing a new registration program within the agency and will provide a familiar and efficient means of implementing the statutory requirements for the registration of SDs and MSPs.
Thus, the Commission believes that it will be more cost-effective for NFA to augment its current systems and processes to accommodate the new SD and MSP registrants than it would be for the Commission to build the same capabilities. The Commission further believes that the delegation of the authority to process SD and MSP registration applications to an RFA, with the imposition of fees on those persons who must register, is a prudent and effective approach. This model, currently employed in the futures context, has worked successfully for Commission registrants and the Commission for many years. While one of the commenters on the Proposal expressed concern about NFA's current lack of swaps expertise, the Commission notes NFA's recent efforts to develop expertise in this area (
The Commission received many comments on the Proposal from entities such as foreign banks and derivatives dealers arguing that several of the Commission's proposed regulations, taken together, would require massive and potentially expensive internal reorganizations to comply with the new swaps regulatory regime. Some commenters predicted adverse consequences to the U.S. swaps markets if foreign entities were required to register as SDs or MSPs, such as
The Commission generally does not believe that foreign-based Swaps Entities will bear higher costs associated with the registration process than U.S.-based Swaps Entities. The identified costs are fees to become registered under the CEA with the Commission and annual NFA membership dues. Many of these foreign-based commenters are already familiar with navigating various U.S. federal and state regulatory regimes in connection with their other lines of business, such as banking and insurance. Moreover, many of the commenters already have operations and capable personnel physically located in the U.S. To the extent that an SD or MSP has neither familiarity with other U.S. regulatory regimes nor personnel physically located in the U.S., the Commission believes that any potentially higher costs that may be incurred in connection with the registration process regulations by a foreign-based Swaps Entity are a necessary consequence of adequately regulating the U.S. swaps markets and ensuring a level playing field for all intermediaries involved in the U.S. swaps markets.
The registration of Swaps Entities is a critical component of the comprehensive regulation of these persons. It is a statutory requirement that SDs and MSPs be registered. Notably, the registration process will serve to confirm initial compliance by an SD or MSP with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations. Moreover, attendant to applying for registration, SDs and MSPs, along with their principals, will be vetted, and those deemed unfit will be barred from registration. As a result, registration and the related requirements
Also, NFA provides an on-line, public database, the Background Affiliation Status Information Center (BASIC), with information on each registrant's status and the status of the registrant's principals. BASIC also provides additional information, such as regulatory actions taken by NFA or the Commission, with respect to a registrant or its principals. Access to this database provides all persons with important information about Commission registrants with whom they may seek to transact business.
Utilizing NFA's existing registration expertise and resources promotes efficiency in that it employs NFA's existing capabilities rather than requiring Commission investment (
The Commission has not identified any impact on price discovery through the registration provisions of this rulemaking.
As is explained above, registration is a critical component within the Dodd-Frank Act regulatory regime to ensure the fitness of SDs and MSPs. In addition to disqualifying ineligible persons, it enhances market participants' ability to make more informed counterparty selection decisions. In this way, it is consistent with sound risk management practices.
CEA section 15 directs the Commission to consider in its cost-benefit evaluation “other public interest considerations.” One such consideration is public confidence. As an element of a regulatory regime that establishes minimum participation standards, the Commission believes that the registration process will promote public confidence in swaps market integrity.
Brokers, Commodity futures, Definitions, Major swap participants, Swap dealers.
Customer protection, Licensing, Major swap participants, Registration, Swap dealers.
Associated persons, Major swap participants, Registration, Swap dealers.
Membership, Registered futures associations.
For the reasons presented above, the Commission hereby amends Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6
(aa) * * *
(6) A swap dealer or major swap participant as a partner, officer, employee, agent (or any natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), in any capacity that involves:
(i) The solicitation or acceptance of swaps (other than in a clerical or ministerial capacity); or
(ii) The supervision of any person or persons so engaged.
5 U.S.C. 522, 522b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6
(f)
(g)
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)(i) If an applicant for registration as a swap dealer or major swap participant pursuant to § 3.10(a)(1)(v) files a Form 7-R and a Form 8-R and fingerprint card for each natural person who is a principal of the applicant, accompanied by such documentation as may be required to demonstrate compliance with each of the Section 4s Implementing Regulations, as defined in § 3.1(f), as are applicable to it, in accordance with the terms of the Section 4s Implementing Regulations, the National Futures Association shall notify the swap dealer or major swap participant, as the case may be, that it is provisionally registered.
(ii) Subsequent to providing notice of provisional registration to an applicant for registration as a swap dealer or major swap participant, the National Futures Association shall determine whether the documentation submitted pursuant to § 3.10(a)(1)(v) by the applicant demonstrates compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulation to which it pertains;
(iii) On and after the date on which the National Futures Association confirms that the applicant for registration as a swap dealer or major swap participant has demonstrated its initial compliance with the applicable requirements of each of the Section 4s Implementing Regulations and all other applicable registration requirements under the Act and Commission regulations, the provisional registration of the applicant shall cease and it shall be registered as a swap dealer or major swap participant, as the case may be.
(a) Except as may be otherwise provided in the Act or in any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission, each futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, leverage transaction merchant, floor broker, floor trader, and associated person (other than an associated person of a swap dealer or major swap participant) must register as such under the Act. Registration in one capacity under the Act shall not include registration in any other capacity;
The additions and revisons read as follows:
(a)
(iii) Applicants for registration as a commodity pool operator must accompany their Form 7-R with the financial statements described in § 4.13(c) of this chapter.
(iv) Applicants for registration as a leverage transaction merchant must accompany their Form 7-R with a Form 2-FR in accordance with the provisions of § 31.13 of this chapter.
(v)(A) Applicants for registration as a swap dealer or major swap participant must accompany their Form 7-R with such documentation as may be required to demonstrate compliance with each Section 4s Implementing Regulation, as defined in § 3.1(f), applicable to them, in accordance with the terms of the Section 4s Implementing Regulation;
(B) The filing of the Form 7-R and accompanying documentation by the applicant swap dealer or major swap participant authorizes the Commission to conduct on-site inspection of the applicant to determine compliance with the Section 4s Implementing Regulations applicable to it.
(C)(
(
(
(D)(
(
(E) Unless specifically reserved in the applicable swap documentation, no withdrawal, deemed withdrawal, cessation or revocation of registration as a swap dealer or major swap participant pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(v), (b), or (d) of this section shall constitute a termination event, force majeure, an illegality, increased costs, a regulatory change, or a similar event under a swap (including any related credit support arrangement) that would permit a party to terminate, renegotiate, modify, amend or supplement one or more transactions under the swap.
(b)
(d) On a date to be established by the National Futures Association, and in accordance with procedures established by the National Futures Association, each registrant as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant shall, on an annual basis, review and update registration information maintained with the National Futures Association. The failure to complete the review and update within thirty days following the date established by the National Futures Association shall be deemed to be a request for withdrawal from registration, which shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of § 3.33(f).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c)
(1) * * *
(iv) The solicitation of leverage customers' orders for leverage transactions,
(v) The solicitation or acceptance of a swap agreement;
(2) * * *
(i) Transactions involving “commodity interests,” as that term is defined in § 1.3(yy);
(4) * * *
(i) The name of the futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, leverage transaction merchant, or applicant for registration in any of these capacities of which the person is an outside director;
(a) The address of each registrant, applicant for registration, and principal, as submitted on the application for registration (Form 7-R or Form 8-R) or as submitted on the biographical supplement (Form 8-R) shall be deemed to be the address for delivery to the registrant, applicant or principal for any communications from the Commission or the National Futures Association, including any summons, complaint, reparation claim, order, subpoena, special call, request for information, notice, and other written documents or correspondence, unless the registrant, applicant or principal specifies another address for this purpose:
(a)(1) Each applicant or registrant as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant shall, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in Form 7-R or Form 8-R which no longer renders accurate and current the information contained therein. Each such correction shall be made on Form 3-R and shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the instructions thereto.
(b)(1) Each applicant for registration or registrant as a floor broker, floor trader or associated person, and each principal of a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant must, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement thereto which renders no longer accurate and current the information contained in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement. Each such correction must be made on Form 3-R and must be prepared and filed in accordance with the instructions thereto.
(2) Each applicant for registration or registrant as a swap dealer or major swap participant and each principal of a swap dealer or major swap participant, must, in accordance with the instructions thereto, promptly correct any deficiency or inaccuracy in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement thereto which renders no longer accurate and current the information contained in the Form 8-R or supplemental statement. Each such correction must be made on Form 3-R and must be prepared and filed in accordance with the instructions thereto.
(c) * * *
(2) Each person registered as, or applying for registration as, a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant must, within thirty days after the termination of the affiliation of a principal with the registrant or applicant, file a notice thereof with the National Futures Association.
The revisions and additions to read as follows:
(a) A futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, leverage transaction merchant, floor broker or floor trader may request that its registration be withdrawn in accordance with the requirements of this section if:
(b) A request for withdrawal from registration as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant must be made on Form 7-W, and a request for withdrawal from registration as a floor broker or floor trader must be made on Form 8-W, completed and filed with the National Futures Association in accordance with the instructions thereto. The request for withdrawal must be made by a person duly authorized by the registrant and must specify:
(6) * * *
(vi) The nature and extent of any pending customer, retail forex customer, option customer, leverage customer, swap counterparty or commodity pool participant claims against the registrant, and, to the best of the registrant's knowledge and belief, the nature and extent of any anticipated or threatened customer, option customer, leverage customer, swap counterparty or commodity pool participant claims against the registrant;
(vii) In the case of a futures commission merchant or a retail foreign exchange dealer which is a party to a guarantee agreement, that all such agreements have been or will be terminated in accordance with the provisions of § 1.10(j) of this chapter not more than thirty days after the filing of the request for withdrawal from registration;
(viii) In the case of a swap dealer, that the person will not engage in any new activity described in the definition of the term “swap dealer” in section 1a(49) of the Act, as such term may be further defined by the Commission; and
(ix) In the case of a major swap participant, that the person will not engage in any new activity described in the definition of the term “major swap participant” in section 1a(33) of the Act, as such term may be further defined by the Commission.
(e) A request for withdrawal from registration as a futures commission merchant, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, major swap participant, introducing broker, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, or leverage transaction merchant on Form 7-W, and a request for withdrawal from registration as a floor broker or floor trader on Form 8-W, must be filed with the National Futures Association and a copy of such request must be sent by the National Futures Association within three business days of the receipt of such withdrawal request to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. In addition, any floor broker or floor trader requesting withdrawal from registration must file a copy of his Form 8-W with each contract market that has granted him trading privileges. Within three business days of any determination by the National Futures Association under § 3.10(d) to treat the failure by a registrant to file an annual Form 7-R as a request for withdrawal, the National Futures Association shall send the Commission notice of that determination.
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6p, 6s, 9, 9a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21 as amended by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010).
(a) Each person who comes within the definition of the term “swap dealer” in section 1a(49) of the Act, as such term may be further defined by the Commission, is subject to the registration provisions under the Act and to part 3 of this chapter.
(b) Each person who comes within the definition of the term “major swap participant” in section 1a(33) of the Act, as such term may be further defined by the Commission, is subject to the registration provisions under the Act and to part 3 of this chapter.
(c) Each affiliate of an insured depository institution described in section 716(c) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203 section 716(c), 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)) is required to be registered as a swap dealer if the affiliate is a swap dealer or as a major swap participant if the affiliate is a major swap participant.
(a)
(b)
7 U.S.C. 6p, 12a and 21.
Each person registered as a swap dealer or major swap participant must become and remain a member of at least one futures association that is registered under section 17 of the Act and that provides for the membership therein of such swap dealer or major swap participant, as the case may be, unless no such futures association is so registered.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Sommers, Chilton, O'Malia and Wetjen voted in the affirmative; no Commissioner voted in the negative.
I support the final rule to establish a process for the registration of swap dealers and major swap participants. The rule implements the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) mandate that these entities be subject to registration and regulation for their swaps business. Registration will enable the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to monitor swap dealers and major swap participants for compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act and Commission rulemakings. Through regulation of dealers, the Commission will be able to protect market participants and the public, as well as promote sound risk management practices. The final rule includes a requirement that swap dealers and major swap participants become members of a registered futures association, such as the National Futures Association (NFA).
In addition, I support the order delegating to the NFA the authority to register swap dealers and major swap participants. This will help efficiently allocate resources and provide the Commission with flexibility.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is revising the list of special local regulations established for recurring marine events at various locations within the geographic boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This rule revises 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 6 new annual recurring marine events and modifying event date(s) for 12 previously established locations within the geographic boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This rule also deletes 4 previously listed marine events and corresponding regulated areas that no longer occur. These regulations will apply to all events listed in the table attached to the regulation, and include events such as regattas, power boat races and marine parades. Special local regulations are established to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events, reduce the Coast Guard's administrative workload and expedite public notification of events. Entry into or movement within these proposed regulated areas during the enforcement periods is prohibited without approval of the appropriate Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective February 21, 2012.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0106 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Dennis Sens, Prevention Division, Fifth Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 398-6204, email
On October 12, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Fifth Coast Guard District” in the
The Coast Guard is revising the list of permanent special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501, established for recurring marine events at various locations within the geographic boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The Fifth Coast Guard District is comprised of the land areas and U.S. navigable waters adjacent to North Carolina, Virginia, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware and portions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. For a detailed description of the geographical area of the district and each Coast Guard Sector—Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25.
The Coast Guard is revising the list of special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501, established for various marine events, by adding 6 new annual recurring events and modifying 12 previously established locations within the geographic boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. This rule also deletes 4 previously listed marine events and corresponding regulated areas that are no longer occurring. The special local regulated areas removed from this section include: Night in Venice, Ocean City, NJ; Baltimore County Community Waterfront Festival, Martin Lagoon, MD; Annapolis Triathlon Swim, Spa Creek, Severn River, MD; and Virginia state hydroplane championships, Western Branch, Elizabeth River, VA. Currently there are 57 special local regulations that are established and enforced at various periods throughout the year that are held on an annual basis. This rule will increase the total number of special local regulations to 59 locations for marine events within the boundary of the Fifth Coast Guard District. The table to 33 CFR 100.501 is renumbered within each section to facilitate future changes.
The Coast Guard is revising regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 6 new marine event locations to the permanent special local regulations listed in this section. The new special local regulations are listed in the following table, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
The Coast Guard is revising regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by modifying 12 existing regulated areas. This revision involves changes to the event date(s) only. The revised special local regulations are listed in the following table, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.
This regulation currently includes events such as sailing regattas, power boat races, swim races, holiday parades, crew and other paddle craft races. Currently, there are 57 annual recurring marine events and many other non-recurring events within the Fifth Coast Guard District. In the past, the Coast Guard regulated these events by creating individual special local regulations on a case by case basis. Most of these events required only the establishment of a regulated area and assignment of a patrol commander to ensure safety. Issuing individual, annual special local regulations has created a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard.
Additionally, for the majority of these events, the Coast Guard does not receive notification of the event, or important details of the event are not finalized by event organizers, with sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule before the event date. The Coast Guard must therefore create temporary final rules that sometimes are completed only days before the event. This results in delayed notification to
This rule will significantly relieve the administrative burden on the Coast Guard, and at the same time allow the sponsor of the event and the Coast Guard to notify the public of these events in a timely manner. The public would be provided with notice of events through the table attached to this regulation. This table lists each recurring marine event that may be regulated by the Coast Guard, and indicates the sponsor, as well as the date(s) and location of the event. Because the dates and locations of these events may change slightly from year to year, the specific information on each event, including the exact dates, specific areas, and description of the regulated area, would be provided to the public through a Local Notice to Mariners published before the event, as well as through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This table would also be updated by the Coast Guard periodically to add new recurring events, remove events that no longer occur, and update listed events to ensure accurate information is provided.
Based on the nature of marine events, large number of participants and spectators, and the event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of participant injury or death resulting from near or actual contact with non-participant vessels traversing through the regulated areas. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule would establish special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.
This prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commander may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The effect of this action merely establishes the dates on which the existing regulations would be enforced and consolidates them within one regulation. It would not impose any additional restrictions on vessel traffic.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas where marine events are being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will only be enforced on marine events that have been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring. Additionally, in most cases, vessels will be able to safely transit around the regulated area at all times, and, with the permission of the Patrol Commander, vessels may transit through the regulated area.
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 compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
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 (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 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)(h.), of the Instruction. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that may have potential for negative impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h.), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in the Table to § 100.501. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be published in Local Notices to Mariners and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(3) Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area.
(4) Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering.
(d)
(1) Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay—Captain of the Port Zone, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: (215) 271-4944.
(2) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—Captain of the Port Zone, Baltimore, Maryland: (410) 576-2525.
(3) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—Captain of the Port Zone, Norfolk, Virginia: (757) 483-8567.
(4) Coast Guard Sector North Carolina—Captain of the Port Zone North Carolina: (877) 229-0770 or (910) 772-2200.
(e)
In
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0536 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3248,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On September 6, 2011 (76 FR 54993), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. Specifically, PCAPCD did not demonstrate that the NO
Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the PCAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also does not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State,
EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(379) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(
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
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 Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. 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 the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 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 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 FIRM for 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
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
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 Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. 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 the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. 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 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 FIRM for 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
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is adopting as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement establishing a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of acquiring military-purpose nondevelopmental items in accordance with streamlined procedures.
Manuel Quinones, telephone (703) 602-8383.
To implement section 866 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, DoD published an interim rule in the
This pilot program is designed to test whether the streamlined procedures, similar to those available for commercial items, can serve as an effective incentive for nontraditional defense contractors to (1) channel investment and innovation into areas that are useful to DoD and (2) provide items developed exclusively at private expense to meet validated military requirements.
DoD reviewed the public comments received from three respondents in the development of the final rule. Two of the three respondents are supportive of both the congressional intent and the interim rule. The respondents submitted comments covering the following three categories: (A) Definition of nontraditional defense contractor; (B) definition of military-purpose nondevelopmental item; and (C) flow down of provision to subcontractors. A discussion of the comments and responses are provided as follows.
Two of the three respondents recommended revisions to the definition of nontraditional defense contractor.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, and is summarized as follows:
This rule implements a statutory requirement under section 866 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011. Section 866 authorized the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of acquiring military-purpose nondevelopmental items.
The objective of this new DoD program is to permit DoD to enter into contracts with nontraditional defense contractors for the purpose of (1) Enabling DoD to acquire items that otherwise might not have been available to DoD; (2) assisting DoD in the rapid acquisition and fielding of capabilities needed to meet urgent operational needs; and (3) protecting the interests of the United States in paying fair and reasonable prices for the item or items acquired.
No public comments were received in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to this rule.
DoD is unable to estimate at this time the number of small entities impacted by the rule, since this is a new pilot program and its purpose is to identify and attract nontraditional defense contractors as defined within the rule and section 866 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.
There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements to small entities associated with this rule. Additionally, there were no significant alternatives considered that met the stated objectives of the applicable statute.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 212 and 252, which was published at 76 FR 38048 on June 29, 2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Reapportionment of non-whiting catch allocations from mothership sector to catcher/processor sector; request for comments.
This notification announces the reapportionment of 4.3 metric tons (mt) of Darkblotched rockfish, 6.5 mt of Pacific Ocean Perch, 3.3 mt of Canary rockfish, and 48.3 mt of Widow rockfish from the mothership sector to the catcher/processor sector.
The reapportionment of non-whiting is effective from 1600 local time, December 14, 2011, until December 31, 2011, unless modified, superseded or rescinded. Comments will be accepted through February 3, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2010-0194 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (if submitting comments via the Federal Rulemaking portal, enter “N/A” in the relevant required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Kevin C. Duffy (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: (206) 526-4743, fax: (206) 526-6736 and email:
This notice is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register's Web site at
This action is authorized by regulations implementing the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California.
Regulations at 50 CFR 660.150(c)(4)(ii) provide for the Regional Administrator to make available for harvest to the catcher/processor sector of the Pacific whiting fishery, the mothership sector's nonwhiting catch allocation remaining when the Pacific whiting allocation is reached or when participants in the mothership sector do not intend to harvest the remaining allocation. Consistent with these provisions, the Whiting Mothership Cooperative Manager notified NMFS in writing on December 13, 2011 that the Whiting Mothership Cooperative had concluded their harvest of mothership sector whiting for 2011.
The best available information on December 14, 2011 indicated that approximately 4.3 metric tons mt of
This notice announces the reapportionment of 4.3 mt of Darkblotched rockfish, 6.5 mt of Pacific Ocean Perch, 3.3 mt of Canary rockfish, and 48.3 mt of Widow rockfish from the mothership sector to the catcher/processor sector. The revised nonwhiting catch allocations between the catcher/processor and mothership sectors for these species are: Darkblotched rockfish, 12.8 mt, catcher/processor sector, 1.7 mt, mothership sector; Pacific Ocean Perch, 16.7 mt, catcher/processor sector, 0.66 mt, mothership sector; Canary rockfish, 8.1 mt, catcher/processor sector, 0.08 mt, mothership sector; and Widow rockfish, 135 mt, catcher/processor sector, 12.86 mt, mothership sector.
Emails sent directly to fishing businesses and postings on the Northwest Region's Internet site were used to provide actual notice to the affected fishers.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such notification would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As previously noted, actual notice of the reapportionment was provided to fishers. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment was impracticable because NMFS had insufficient time to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time NMFS was notified that the mothership sector had concluded its harvest and the time the fishery modifications had to be implemented in order to ensure that fisheries are managed based on the best available scientific information. Reapportioning as quickly as possible was necessary to allow fishers access to the available fish. For the same reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
These actions are authorized by 50 CFR 660.150(c)(4) and 660.150(c)(5) and are 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.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of the Aleut Corporation's pollock directed fishing allowance and the Community Development Quota from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea directed fisheries. These actions are necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2012 total allowable catch of pollock, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 19, 2012, until the effective date of the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) groundfish, unless otherwise modified or superseded through publication of a notification in the
Mary Furuness, (907) 586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (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.
In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2012 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Aleut Corporation's directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 15,500 metric tons (mt) and the Community Development Quota (CDQ) is 1,900 mt as established by the final 2011 and 2012 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (76 FR 11139, March 1, 2011), as adjusted by two inseason adjustments (76 FR 12607, March 8, 2011 and 76 FR 81876, December 29, 2011).
As of January 20, 2012, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 10,500 mt of Aleut Corporation's DFA and 1,900 mt of pollock CDQ in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(
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 reallocation of AI pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 6, 2012.
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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by chafing on high pressure fuel lines due to improper installation of an expandable pin on the lower cowl assembly. This proposed AD would require installing spring clips and repositioning the lanyard attachment points at the forward end and the forward firefloor of the lower cowl. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of the high pressure fuel lines, which if not corrected, could cause fuel leakage in a fire zone.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone (416) 375-4000; fax (416) 375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-21, dated July 12, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During routine maintenance, an operator discovered evidence of chafing on a high pressure (HP) fuel line. The source of chafing was related to the improper installation of an expandable pin on the lower cowl assembly, which caused the lanyard to foul against the HP fuel line. This condition, if not corrected, may cause fuel leakage in a fire zone.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 84-71-13 to introduce spring clips to positively retain and control the lanyards, regardless of the installation orientation of the expandable pin to rectify this problem.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-71-13, dated May 19, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 83 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 4001, 4003 through 4354 inclusive; and 4356 through 4363 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71: Power Plant.
This AD was prompted by chafing on high pressure fuel lines due to improper installation of an expandable pin on the lower cowl assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of the high pressure fuel lines, which if not corrected, could cause fuel leakage in a fire zone.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install new or serviceable spring clips and re-position the lanyard attachment points, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-71-13, dated May 19, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-21, dated July 12, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-71-13, dated May 19, 2011; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Cessna Aircraft Company Model 560XL airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of wheel inserts becoming loose and damaging brake assemblies on Model 560XL airplanes. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the torque lug and surrounding components (wheel base, side rim, lock ring) for damage (such as corrosion, cracks, dents, bent areas, damaged or missing paint or primer, or
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Cessna service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277-7706; telephone (316) 517-6215; fax (316) 517-5802; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (316) 946-4154; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of wheel inserts becoming loose and damaging brake assemblies on Model 560XL airplanes. In two cases, a loose wheel insert damaged the brake housing at a location that affects both the antiskid brake hydraulic system and the emergency brake system. In those two cases, both systems failed to stop the airplane on the runway. This condition, if not corrected, could result in brake failure, and consequently an airplane not being able to stop on the runway.
We reviewed Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, Revision 1, dated May 5, 2011, including Service Bulletin Supplemental Data SB560XL-32-41, dated February 25, 2011. That service bulletin describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the torque lug and surrounding components (wheel base, side rim, lock ring) for damage (such as corrosion, cracks, dents, bent areas, damaged or missing paint or primer, or wear on the metal), and of the bearing cup for corrosion, turned cup, or clearance that exceeds limits, and repair if necessary; measuring the torque lugs for width and replacing screws and inserts with new, improved screws and inserts; and re-identifying the wheel assemblies.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, Revision 1, dated May 5, 2011, describe procedures for submitting a comment sheet related to service bulletin quality and a sheet recording compliance with the service bulletin, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 473 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs or replacements as applicable that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Cessna Aircraft Company Model 560XL airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers 5002 through 5372 inclusive, 5501 through 5830 inclusive, 6001 through 6055 inclusive, 6057 through 6066 inclusive, 6069 through 6071 inclusive, and 6073 through 6077 inclusive.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of wheel inserts becoming loose and damaging brake assemblies on Model 560XL airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent brake failure, which could result in an airplane not being able to stop on the runway.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, or during the next tire change accomplished after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD on both main wheels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, Revision 1, dated May 5, 2011. Do all applicable repairs and replacements before further flight.
(1) Do a general visual inspection of the torque lug and surrounding components (wheel base, side rim, lock ring) for damage (such as corrosion, cracks, dents, bent areas, damaged or missing paint or primer, or wear on the metal), and of the bearing cup for corrosion, turned cup, or clearance that exceeds limits, and all applicable repairs.
(2) Measure the torque lugs for width and replace screws and inserts with new, improved screws and inserts.
(3) Re-identify the wheel assembly.
Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, Revision 1, dated May 5, 2011, refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 3-1571-32-7, dated February 25, 2011, as an additional source of guidance on inspecting and repairing the torque lugs, surrounding components, and bearing cup, and re-identifying the wheel assemblies.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a wheel
Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, dated February 25, 2011, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Although Cessna Service Bulletin SB560XL-32-41, Revision 1, dated May 5, 2011, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (316) 946-4154; fax: (316) 946-4107; email:
(2) For Cessna service information identified in this AD, contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone (316) 517-6215; fax (316) 517-5802; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702); CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705); CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900); and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of deformation of the pressure regulator on the oxygen cylinder, which was attributed to batches of raw material that did not meet required tensile strength. This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if certain oxygen pressure regulators are installed, and replacement of oxygen cylinder and regulator assemblies (CRAs) containing pressure regulators that do not meet required material properties. We are proposing this AD to prevent elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone (514) 855-5000; fax (514) 855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-28, dated July 28, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During a routine inspection, deformation was found at the neck of the pressure regulator body on the oxygen Cylinder and Regulator Assemblies (CRA) of a BD-700-1A11 aeroplane.
An investigation by the vendor, Avox Systems Inc., revealed that the deformation was attributed to two (2) batches of raw material that did not meet the required tensile strength. This may cause elongation of the pressure regulator neck, which could result in rupture of the oxygen cylinder, and in the case of cabin depressurization, oxygen would not be available when required.
Although there have been no reported failures to date on any CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 or CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes, similar oxygen pressure regulators, Part Number (P/N) 806370-06, could also be installed on the aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this [TCCA] directive.
This [TCCA] directive mandates [an inspection for certain serial numbers, and if necessary, replacement of the affected oxygen CRA in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011; and] the replacement of oxygen CRAs containing pressure regulators that do not meet the required material properties.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 263 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $44,710, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $85 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10999 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15990 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19990 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of deformation of the pressure regulator on the oxygen cylinder, which was attributed to batches of raw material that did not meet required tensile strength. We are issuing this
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 1,800 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Inspect the serial number of each oxygen pressure regulator, part number (P/N) 806370-06, to determine if the serial number of the regulator is listed in “Table 2, Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011. If the serial number of the oxygen pressure regulator, P/N 806370-06, is listed in “Table 2, Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011, before further flight: Replace the affected oxygen cylinder and regulator assembly (CRA), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an oxygen pressure regulator, P/N 806370-06, having a serial number listed in “Table 2, Regulators” of paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011, on any airplane unless the serial number of the CRA and pressure regulator have a suffix “A” beside the serial number.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-28, dated July 28, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-35-011, dated July 5, 2011; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the center section ribs of the horizontal stabilizers. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the aft face of the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center section of the horizontal stabilizer; and crack measurement, repairs, and installation of a new center section rib if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the left and right bearing lugs of the rib hinge spreading at the same time, which could result in failure of both hinge bearing lugs. Failure of the hinge bearing lugs could result in the inability of the horizontal stabilizer to sustain flight loads and therefore reduce the controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001; phone: (206) 544-5000, extension 2; fax: (206) 766-5683; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: (562) 627-5357; fax: (562) 627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of cracks found on the left, right, or, in several instances, both of the center section ribs of the horizontal stabilizer on Model MD-80 and MD-90 series airplanes. Two cracks were reported on Model MD-80 series airplanes having accumulated between 23,700 and 41,963 total flight hours and between 23,300 and 35,294 total flight cycles. Nine cracks were reported on Model MD-90 series airplanes having accumulated between 9,051 and 26,053 total flight hours and between 8,939 and 25,260 total flight cycles. These cracks were found on the aft face of the hinge bearing lugs of the horizontal stabilizer. Undetected cracks in the left and right bearing lugs of the rib hinge, if not corrected, could spread at the same time, which could result in failure of both hinge bearing lugs, the inability of the horizontal stabilizer to sustain flight loads, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
The design of the horizontal rib on Model 717-200 airplanes is the same rib design used on Model MD-80 and MD-90 series airplanes, and is susceptible to the same failure mode. Therefore, Model 717-200 airplanes may also be subject to the identified unsafe condition.
We have issued similar rulemaking in AD 2011-01-11, Amendment 39-16565 (76 FR 430, January 5, 2011), for The Boeing Company Model MD-90 airplanes, that requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking on the hinge bearing lugs of the left and right sides of the center section ribs of the horizontal stabilizer, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
We have also issued NPRM 2011-NM-027-AD (76 FR 53346, August 26, 2011), for The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. That NPRM proposes to require repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the aft face of the center section of the horizontal stabilizer; measuring crack length and blending out cracks; and replacing the horizontal stabilizer center section rib, if necessary.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011. This service information describes procedures for repetitive eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracks on the aft face on the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center section of the horizontal stabilizer; and crack measurement, repairs, post-repair repetitive inspections, and installation of a new center section rib if necessary.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011, describe procedures for submitting inspection results, this proposed AD would not require those actions.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 129 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition labor costs specified in this proposed AD. The estimated parts cost for a replacement rib is $16,387.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5510, Horizontal Stabilizer Structure.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on the center section ribs of the horizontal stabilizers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the left and right bearing lugs of the rib hinge spreading at the same time, which could result in failure of both hinge bearing lugs. Failure of the hinge bearing lugs could result in the inability of the horizontal stabilizer to sustain flight loads and therefore reduce the controllability of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before the accumulation of 35,000 total flight cycles, or within 8,275 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do an ETHF inspection for cracks of the aft face on the left and right rib hinge bearing lugs of the center section of the horizontal stabilizer, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011. If no crack is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10,500 flight cycles.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, measure the length of the crack, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.
For any crack that meets “Condition 2A” of Table 1 of 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011: Do the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, do a blend out repair, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.
(2) Within 14,200 flight cycles after accomplishing the blend out repair required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Do an ETHF inspection of the blend out repair area for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,400 flight cycles.
(i) If any crack is found during the ETHF inspection required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: Before further flight, remove the cracked center section rib of the horizontal stabilizer and install a new center section rib, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011.
(ii) Within 35,000 flight cycles after the installation of the new center section rib, do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD.
For any crack that meets “Condition 2D” of Table 1 of 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011: Before further flight, remove the cracked center section rib of the horizontal stabilizer and install a new center section rib, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011. Within 35,000 flight cycles after the installation of the new rib, do the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD.
Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717-55A0011, dated May 17, 2011, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) The Manager Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone:(562) 627-5357; fax: (562) 627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001; phone: (206) 544-5000, extension 2; fax:(206) 766-5683; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that escape slides/rafts did not deploy due to galvanic corrosion of the door-mounted slide/raft packboard release mechanisms. This proposed AD would require doing a general visual inspection of the housing
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Boeing service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6592; fax: (425) 917-6591; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports that escape slides/rafts did not deploy due to galvanic corrosion of door-mounted slide/raft packboard release mechanisms. Such corrosion, if not detected and corrected, could interfere with escape slide/raft deployment, prohibit doors from opening in the armed mode, and cause consequent delay and injury during evacuation of passengers and crew from the cabin in the event of an emergency.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0507, dated June 30, 2011. The service information describes procedures for doing a general visual inspection of the housing assembly of the door-mounted slide/raft packboard release mechanism to determine if its surface treatment has been sealed, and if unsealed, replacing the housing assembly with a new or serviceable housing assembly.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 161 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0507, dated June 30, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports that escape slides/rafts did not deploy due to galvanic corrosion of the door-mounted slide/raft packboard release mechanisms. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion in the packboard release mechanisms, which could interfere with escape slide/raft deployment, prohibit doors from opening in the armed mode, and cause consequent delay and injury during evacuation of passengers and crew from the cabin in the event of an emergency.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 42 months after the effective date of this AD, at the applicable passenger/crew entry doors identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0507, dated June 30, 2011: Do a general visual inspection of the housing assembly of the packboard release mechanism to determine if its surface treatment has been sealed; and if unsealed, before further flight, replace the housing assembly with a new or serviceable housing assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0507, dated June 30, 2011.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0507, dated June 30, 2011, refers to Air Cruisers Service Bulletin 777 107-25-30, dated September 30, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for inspecting and installing new housing assembly of the door-mounted slide/raft packboard release mechanism.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Ana Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6592; fax: (425) 917-6591; email:
(2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766-5680; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the crown area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued that AD, we received additional reports of cracking at the horizontal chem-mill steps away from the lap joints over the entire crown area, and vertical chem-mill cracks adjacent to the butt joints. This proposed AD would add repetitive inspections for cracking using different inspection methods and would inspect additional areas, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require additional repairs to previously repaired areas and repetitive inspections for loose fasteners and replacement if necessary in certain previously repaired areas. This proposed AD would also reduce certain compliance times and extend certain other compliance times. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could cause the fuselage skin to fracture and fail, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-6447; fax: (425) 917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On June 15, 2005, we issued AD 2005-13-27, amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005), for certain Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the crown area of the fuselage skin, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from a Model 737 fuselage structure test and fatigue analysis that indicate fuselage skin cracking could occur between 21,000 and 42,000 total flight cycles. We issued that AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could cause the fuselage skin to fracture and fail, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2005-13-27, amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005), additional reports of cracking at the horizontal chem-mill steps away from the lap joints over the entire crown area, and vertical chem-mill cracks adjacent to the butt joints, have been received. Although there were no changes to the applicability in AD 2005-13-17, we have changed paragraph (c) of the proposed AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, was referred to for accomplishing the actions in AD 2005-13-27, amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005). Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, describes procedures for repetitive non-destructive inspections (NDI) (medium
• Inspecting for horizontal chem-mill cracking above the S-4 and S-10 lap joints
• Inspecting for horizontal chem-mill cracking in the shear wrinkle areas
• Inspecting for vertical chem-mill cracking at specified locations
• Inspecting for horizontal chem-mill cracking in general pocket-to-pocket areas at specified locations.
The corrective actions include installing a permanent repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions), installing a time-limited repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions), and contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair. For the temporary repair, the related investigative actions include a detailed inspection for cracks of the skin and a detailed inspection for corrosion and disbonding of the lap joint; and the corrective action is contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair. For the permanent repair, the related investigative actions include an NDI inspection for cracks of the skin and fastener holes and a detailed inspection for corrosion and disbonding of the skin; and the corrective action is contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, also describes procedures, for airplanes on which permanent repairs have already been done, for installing internal tear strap doublers.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, also describes procedures, for airplanes on which time-limited repairs have already been installed, for doing repetitive detailed inspections for loose fasteners until the permanent repair is installed; and making the repair permanent (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions) by replacing the blind fasteners in the time-limited repair with solid rivets, and installing internal tear strap doublers. The related investigative actions include an NDI for cracks of the fastener holes and skin, a general visual inspection to determine if fasteners are installed common to the chem-milled steps, and a detailed inspection for corrosion and disbonding of the skin; and the corrective action is contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the repair.
The repetitive NDI inspection intervals vary depending on the configuration and the inspection option. Option 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies doing one of the following NDI; medium frequency eddy current inspection, magneto optical imaging inspection, or C-scan inspection). Option 2 specifies doing one NDI—an external ultrasonic phased array inspection. The repetitive interval ranges between 500 flight cycles and 2,400 flight cycles. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, also specifies that if the inspection procedure is switched from Option 2 to Option 1, then the next Option 1 inspection must be done within the Option 2 interval; and that if the inspection procedure is switched from Option 1 to Option 2, then the next two Option 2 inspections must be done within the Option 1 interval.
The inspection thresholds range from 25,000 total flight cycles to 81,000 total flight cycles, depending on the airplane configuration and inspection location. The grace periods range from 500 to 2,400 flight cycles or 1,800 flight hours, depending on the airplane configuration and inspection location. The repetitive inspection intervals range from 500 to 2,400 flight cycles, or 1,800 to 2,400 flight hours, depending on the inspection type and airplane configuration. For airplanes on which a time-limited repair is done, the compliance time to do the permanent repair is 6,000 flight cycles after doing the time-limited repair.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, also includes an exception to inspecting the chem-mill steps under an existing external repair doubler, provided the conditions specified below apply:
• The repair was installed after November 24, 2010
• The repair was approved by the FAA or by a Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) who was authorized by the FAA to make such findings
• The repair extends a minimum of three rows of fasteners on each side of the chem-mill step line in the circumferential direction, Or
• The repair was approved by the FAA or by a Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) who was authorized by the FAA to make such findings
• The repair extends a minimum of 2 rows of
• The repair is similar to Figure 201, Repair 31 of Figure 201 of Subject 53-00-01, “Fuselage Skin—General,” of the Boeing 737-300, 737-400, or 737-500 Structural Repair Manual, with regard to fastener type, size layout and pitch; repair part thickness and material; and repair installation.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2005-13-27, Amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005). This proposed AD would add repetitive inspections for cracking using different inspection methods and would inspect additional areas, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require, for airplanes on which the existing permanent repair was done, installing internal tear strap doublers. This proposed AD would also require, for airplanes on which the existing temporary repair was done, doing repetitive inspections for loose fasteners and replacement if necessary, and installing a permanent repair. This proposed AD would also change (reducing some and extending others) initial compliance times and repetitive intervals. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
The Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, do not provide a procedure for replacing loose fasteners; however, this proposed AD requires replacing any loose fastener with a new fastener of the same type and size as specified in Figures 6, 35 and 36, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2005-13-27, Amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005), and adding the following new AD:
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 5, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2005-13-27, Amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005).
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking at the horizontal chem-mill steps away from the lap joints over the entire crown area, and vertical chem-mill cracks adjacent to the butt joints. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin, which could cause the fuselage skin to fracture and fail, and result in rapid decompression of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, perform detailed and eddy current inspections for cracking of the crown area of the fuselage skin in accordance with Part 1, including the “Note,” of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Doing the inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph for the corresponding inspection areas.
(1) Before the accumulation of the applicable total flight cycles specified in the “Threshold” column of Table 1 of Figure 1 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005.
(2) Within 4,500 flight cycles after August 1, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-13-27, Amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005).
Repeat either the detailed or eddy current inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD until paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD has been done, as applicable. Doing the inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this paragraph for the corresponding inspection area.
(1) Repeat the detailed inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 flight cycles.
(2) Repeat the eddy current inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, except as provided by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, do a permanent repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with Part 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005. Doing a permanent repair ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the repaired area only.
(2) Do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD at the time specified in the applicable paragraph. Doing a time-limited repair ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the repaired area only.
(i) Before further flight, do a time-limited repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005.
(ii) At the times specified in Figure 8 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, do the related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005.
Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings; or using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must specifically reference this AD.
Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005, specifies reporting certain information to Boeing, this AD does not require that action.
Actions done before August 1, 2005, in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
Except as provided by paragraph (v)(1) of this AD; at the applicable time specified in Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010: Do a non-destructive inspection (NDI) (medium frequency eddy current, magneto optical imaging, C-scan, or ultrasonic phased array) for horizontal chem-mill cracking above the S-4 and S-10 lap joints, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.1.a. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (r) of this AD. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Accomplishment of the inspections required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for the corresponding inspection areas.
Option 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies doing one of the following NDI; medium frequency eddy current inspection, magneto optical imaging inspection, or C-scan inspection. Option 2 specifies doing one NDI—an external ultrasonic phased array inspection. These options have different compliance times after the initial inspection.
If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD.
(1) Before further flight, do a permanent repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (v)(2) of this AD. Doing a permanent repair ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD for the repaired area only.
(2) Do the actions specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i), (n)(2)(ii), and (n)(2)(iii) of this AD at
(i) Before further flight, do a time-limited repair (including related investigative actions and applicable corrective actions) in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (v)(2) of this AD.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles after the time-limited repair was installed as specified in paragraph (n)(2)(i) of this AD or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for loose fasteners, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until the permanent repair required by paragraph (n)(2)(iii) of this AD is done. If any loose fasteners are found, before further flight, replace the fasteners with new fasteners of the same type and size as specified in Figures 6, 35 and 36 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
(iii) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the time-limited repair was installed as specified in paragraph (n)(2)(i) of this AD, do the permanent repair specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
Except as provided by paragraph (v)(1) of this AD; at the applicable time specified in Table 3 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010: Do an NDI (medium frequency eddy current, magneto optical imaging, C-scan, or ultrasonic phased array) for horizontal chem-mill cracking in the shear wrinkle areas, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.1.b of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
Except as provided by paragraph (v)(1) of this AD; at the applicable time specified in Table 4 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010: Do an NDI (medium frequency eddy current, magneto optical imaging, C-scan, or ultrasonic phased array) for vertical chem-mill cracking at locations specified in, and in accordance with paragraph 3.B.1.c. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
Except as provided by paragraph (v)(1) of this AD; at the applicable time specified in Tables 5 and 6 of paragraph 1.E, “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010: Do an NDI (medium frequency eddy current, magneto optical imaging, C-scan, or ultrasonic phased array) for horizontal chem-mill cracking in general pocket-to-pocket areas at specified locations in and in accordance with paragraph 3.B.1.d., 3.B.1.e., and 3.B.1.f., as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in Tables 5 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
For inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD: It is not necessary to inspect the chem-mill steps under an existing repair installed using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002; or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005.
If any crack is found during any inspections required by paragraph (o), (p), or (q) of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes on which permanent repairs have been done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; except airplanes on which internal tear strap doublers were previously installed using a repair plan approved using the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD: Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, install internal tear strap doublers, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.3. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (v)(2) of this AD. Installation of internal tear strap doublers specified in this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD for the repaired area only.
(2) For airplanes on which time-limited repairs have been installed in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; except airplanes on which the permanent repair has been installed before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005: Within 3,000 flight cycles after the time limited repair is installed, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection for loose fasteners, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until the permanent repair is installed in accordance with paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. If any loose fasteners are found, before further flight, replace the fasteners with new fasteners of the same type and size as specified in Figures 6, 35, and 36, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010.
(3) For airplanes on which time-limited repairs have been installed in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; except airplanes on which the permanent repair has been installed before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1234, dated June 13, 2002, or Revision 1, dated March 31, 2005; before the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight cycles after the time-limited repair is installed, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, make the repair permanent by replacing the blind fasteners in the time-limited repair with solid rivets, and install internal tear strap doublers, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, except as provided by paragraph (v)(2) of this AD.
If any crack is found after the time-limited or permanent repair is installed, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
(1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies a compliance time relative to the “release of Revision 2 of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (x) of this AD.
(3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, specifies reporting certain information to Boeing, this AD does not require that action.
The post-repair inspection specified in Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, is not required by this AD.
The damage tolerance inspections specified in Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., Compliance, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, may be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)). The corresponding actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions and Figures 40 and 41 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1234, Revision 2, dated November 24, 2010, are not required in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-13-27, Amendment 39-14164 (70 FR 36821, June 27, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements in this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6447; fax (425) 917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax (206) 766-5680; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Glasflugel Models Standard Libelle-201B, Club Libelle 205, Mosquito, and Kestrel gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion damage to the elevator control rod that could lead to failure of the elevator control rod, possibly resulting in loss of control of the glider. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service Hansjörg Streifeneder GmbH, D-72582 Grabenstetten, Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: +49(0)73821629; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
A broken elevator control rod in the vertical fin on a Kestrel sailplane has been reported. The technical investigation revealed that water had soaked into the elevator control rod through a control bore hole and resulted in corrosion damage. The investigation concluded as well that the corrosion cannot be detected from outside the elevator control rod.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the elevator control rod, possibly resulting in loss of control of the sailplane.
To address this unsafe condition, Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH have developed and published Technical Note (TN) TN 201-40, TN 205-27, TN 206-26, TN 303-25, TN 304-12, TN 401-30, TN 501-10, TN 604-11, which provides instructions for elevator control rod inspection and replacement.
For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2011-0213 to require a one-time inspection and replacement of the affected elevator control rod with an improved part.
Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH has issued Technical Note TN 201-40, TN 205-27, TN 206-26, TN 303-25, TN 304-12, TN 401-30, TN 501-10, and TN 604-11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA translation approval dated September 9, 2011). The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 54 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $333 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,522, or $843 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the following Glasflugel models and serial number (S/N) gliders, certificated in any category:
(1) Club Libelle 205, all S/Ns
(2) Kestrel, all S/Ns, except S/N 85, 110, and 125
(3) Mosquito, all S/Ns
(4) Standard Libelle-201B, S/N 169
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as corrosion damage to the elevator control rod that could lead to failure of the elevator control rod, possibly resulting in loss of control of the glider. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the elevator control rod in the vertical fin following Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 201-40, TN 205-27, TN 206-26, TN 303-25, TN 304-12, TN 401-30, TN 501-10, and TN 604-11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA translation approval dated September 9, 2011), as applicable to glider model.
(2) If you find any discrepancy in the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the elevator control rod with an elevator control rod that does not have a control bore hole, following Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 201-40, TN 205-27, TN 206-26, TN 303-25, TN 304-12, TN 401-30, TN 501-10, and TN 604-11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA translation approval dated September 9, 2011), as applicable to glider model.
(3) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, unless already done as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, replace the elevator control rod in the vertical fin with
(4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an elevator control rod with a control bore hole on the side.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011-0213R1, dated November 8, 2011; and Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN 201-40, TN 205-27, TN 206-26, TN 303-25, TN 304-12, TN 401-30, TN 501-10, and TN 604-11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA translation approval dated September 9, 2011), for related information. For service information related to this AD, contact Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service Hansjörg Streifeneder GmbH, D-72582 Grabenstetten, Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: +49(0)73821629; email:
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is initiating a review to determine whether competitive products provide the appropriate minimum contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs. This document invites comments to facilitate examination of this question.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), Public Law 109-435, 120 Stat. 3218 (2006), directs the Commission to promulgate regulations to ensure that competitive products, collectively, bear an “appropriate share” of the Postal Service's institutional costs.
The initial Commission review of this issue determined that competitive products, collectively, annually should contribute a minimum of 5.5 percent of the institutional costs of the Postal Service. Order No. 43, October 29, 2007, paras. 3040-47. The PAEA further directs the Commission to revisit this question every 5 years.
Five years has passed since enactment of the PAEA. The Commission initiates Docket No. RM2012-3 to evaluate how to ensure that the appropriate minimum contribution to the Postal Service's institutional costs is provided by competitive products. The Commission will decide whether its rule 3015.7(c), established in Order No. 43, which sets the 5.5 percent minimum contribution, should be retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.
When establishing the initial level of appropriate contribution from competitive products, the Commission tried to balance the risk of setting the contribution level too high with the risk of setting it too low. Given a very competitive marketplace where the Postal Service's market share is relatively small, setting the contribution level too high could adversely affect the Postal Service's ability to compete. On the other hand, establishing a markup that is too low could give the Postal Service an artificial competitive advantage. The Commission gave considerable weight to the historical contribution made by items categorized as competitive products by the PAEA. The Commission set the minimum contribution level at 5.5 percent of total institutional costs, in line with the competitive products' estimated contribution to institutional costs of 5.4 percent in FY 2005 and 5.7 percent in FY 2006.
Since rule 3015.7(c) has been in place, the Postal Service's competitive products collectively have covered more than 5.5 percent of the Postal Service's institutional costs. For FY 2007, the revenue from competitive products minus their attributable costs equaled 5.66 percent of total institutional costs.
On December 29, 2011, the Postal Service filed its 2011 Annual Compliance Report with the Commission. That report indicates that in FY 2011 competitive products collectively contributed 7.84 percent of the Postal Service's institutional costs.
The Commission invites comments to facilitate its examination of the appropriateness of the current contribution level. To inform its deliberations, the Commission requests comments from interested members of the public on whether and how changes in competitive market conditions, the allocation of costs to competitive products, the number and volume of competitive products, or any other changes should impact the minimum appropriate share of institutional costs of the Postal Service that should be provided by competitive products. As required by the statute, the Commission in making its determination must consider all relevant circumstances, including the prevailing competitive conditions in the market, and the degree to which any costs are uniquely or disproportionately associated with any competitive products. Comments also are welcome on any issues relevant to the reasonableness of the current 5.5 percent contribution requirement and retaining, modifying, or eliminating it.
Comments are due March 5, 2012. Reply comments may be submitted on or before April 2, 2012.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, R. Kevin Harle is designated as the officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative). The Public Representative will direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to him and, upon request, will provide their names for the record. Neither the Public Representative nor any of the assigned personnel will participate in or provide advice on any Commission decision in this proceeding.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2012-3, in compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(b).
2. The Commission designates R. Kevin Harle as the Public Representative representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due March 5, 2012.
4. Reply comments are due April 2, 2012.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
The EPA is announcing that the period for providing public comments on the December 6, 2011, proposed rule titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants” is being extended for 12 days.
Mr. David Putney, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02), Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541-2016; Fax number (919) 541-3207; Email address:
Due to requests received from industry to extend the public comment period, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 12 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on February 1, 2012, rather than January 20, 2012.
The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0797. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the proposed rulemaking at the addresses given above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
The EPA is announcing the extension of the public comment period for the EPA's responses to state and tribal ozone designation recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA sent the responses directly to the states and tribes on or about December 9, 2011. On December 20, 2011 (76 FR 78872, FRL-9608-6), the EPA published a notice in the
Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2012. Please refer to
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-HQ-2008-0476, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For general questions concerning this action, please contact Carla Oldham, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-3347, email at
1.
2.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
• Follow directions.
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
The EPA has established a docket for the ozone designations rulemaking for the 2008 ozone standards at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. In addition, the EPA has established a Web site for the ozone designations rulemaking at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to establish an order for application of contract modifications to resolve any potential conflicts that may arise from multiple modifications with the same effective date.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before March 19, 2012, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS case 2012-D002, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Julian Thrash, (703) 602-0310.
The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 204.70, Uniform Procurement Instrument Identification Numbers, prescribes numbering procedures for contract modifications and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 43.1, General, prescribes rules for determining the effective date. There are no rules to describe in what order to apply modifications to determine the actual content of a resulting modified contract. In order to determine the sequence of modifications to a contract or order, a method for determining the order of application for modifications is needed to resolve any conflict arising from multiple modifications with the same effective date. As such, this rule proposes to add DFARS text at 204.7007, Order of Application for Modifications, to resolve any potential inconsistency.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The objective for this case is to provide a set of rules to the contracting officer to resolve any potential conflict from multiple modifications with the same effective date. The changes
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. The alternative to this rule is to continue relying on DFARS subpart 204.70, which prescribes numbering procedures for contract modifications, and FAR subpart 43.1, which provides guidelines for determining the effective date. However, the cited text does not provide a clear structured path to ensure no ambiguity arises when determining what order to apply modifications.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012-D002) in the correspondence.
This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 204 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 204 is revised to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
2. Add section 204.7007 to read as follows:
(a) Circumstances may exist in which the numeric order of the modifications to a contract is not the order in which the changes to the contract actually take effect.
(b) In order to determine the sequence of modifications to a contract or order, the modifications will be applied in the following order:
(1) Modifications will be applied in order of the effective date on the modification.
(2) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date, modifications will be applied in signature date order.
(3) In the event of two or more modifications with the same effective date and the same signature date, procuring contracting office modifications will be applied in numeric order, followed by contract administration office modifications in numeric order.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text addressing the definition of cost or pricing data. The DFARS changes are necessary to ensure consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before March 19, 2012, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2011-D040, using any of the following methods:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by Inserting “DFARS Case 2011-D040” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2011-D040.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2011-D040” on your attached document. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, (703) 602-0302.
This rule proposes to update the DFARS for consistency with FAR changes addressing the definition of cost or pricing data, published at 75 FR 53135 on August 30, 2010.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rule proposes to update the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) for consistency with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) changes addressing the definition of cost or pricing data, published at 75 FR 53135 on August 30, 2010. DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory
The rule does not expand or diminish the existing rights of the contracting officer to obtain cost data or pricing data. Instead, this rule will benefit all entities, both large and small, by clarifying the requirements for the submission of “certified cost or pricing data” and “data other than certified cost or pricing data.”
There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No known significant alternatives to the rule have been identified.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2011-D040) in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 204, 215, 217, 219, 225, 239, 241, 242, 244, and 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204, 215, 217, 219, 225, 239, 241, 242, 244, and 252 is revised to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
2. Section 204.805 is amended in paragraph (5) by removing “subject to cost or pricing data” and adding “subject to certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
3. Section 215.403 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:
4. Section 215.403-1 is amended by—
a. Revising the section heading to read as set forth below;
b. In paragraph (b) and the heading of paragraph (c) removing “
c. In paragraph (c)(4)(C) and the introductory text of paragraph (c)(4)(D) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place;
d. In paragraph (c)(4)(D)(
e. In paragraph (c)(4)(D)(
The revision reads as follows:
5. Section 215.403-3 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:
6. Section 215.404-2 is amended by revising the section heading to read as follows:
7. Section 215.404-4 is amended by—
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place;
b. At the end of paragraph (c)(2)(A) removing “.” and adding “; and” in its place;
c. In paragraph (c)(2)(C)(
d. At the end of paragraph (c)(2)(C)(
e. At the end of paragraph (c)(2)(D) removing “.” and adding “; and” in its place.
8. Section 215.407-5-70 is amended in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
9. Section 215.408 is amended in paragraphs (1)(i) through (iii) by removing “Cost or Pricing Data” and adding “Certified Cost or Pricing Data” in its place and in paragraph (2) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
10. Section 217.7406 is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by removing “of cost or pricing data” and adding “of certified cost or pricing data” in its place and removing “and cost or pricing data” and adding “and certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
11. Section 219.806 is amended in paragraph (1) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place and removing “FAR Subpart 15.4” and adding “FAR subpart 15.4” in its place.
12. Section 225.7303 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
13. Section 225.7304 is amended in paragraph (c) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place and in paragraph (e)(3) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place and removing “Subpart 201.4” and adding “subpart 201.4” in its place.
14. Section 239.7406 is amended by revising the section heading to read as set forth below and in paragraph (a) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
15. Section 241.201 is amended in paragraph (3)(ii) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place and removing “FAR Subpart 15.4” and adding “FAR subpart 15.4” in its place.
16. Section 242.7203 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
17. Section 242.7302 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
18. Section 242.7502 is amended in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
19. Section 244.305-70 is amended in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) by removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
20. Section 252.209-7009 is amended by removing the clause date “(DEC 2010)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place, redesignating paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) as (a)(i) and (ii), and in newly designated paragraph (a)(i) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
21. Section 252.215-7000 is amended by removing the clause date “(DEC 1991)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place and removing “Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications” and adding “Certified Cost or Pricing Data—Modifications” in its place wherever it appears.
22. Section 252.215-7002 is amended by—
a. Removing the clause date “(MAY 2011)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place;
b. In paragraph (c)(1) removing “subcontracts,” and adding “subcontracts” in its place and removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place; and
c. In paragraph (c)(2)(i) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
23. Section 252.217-7027 is amended by removing the clause date “(OCT 1998)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place, in paragraph (a) removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place, and in paragraph (b) removing “
24. Section 252.243-7002 is amended by removing the clause date “(MAR 1998)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place, in paragraph (c)(1) removing “Cost or pricing data” and adding “Certified cost or pricing data,” in its place, and in paragraph (c)(2) removing “Information other than cost or pricing data” and adding “Data other than certified cost or pricing data” in its place and removing “cost or pricing data” and adding “certified cost or pricing data” in its place.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update DoD's voucher processing procedures and better accommodate the use of Wide Area WorkFlow to process vouchers.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before March 19, 2012, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2011-D054, using any of the following methods:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal byinserting “DFARS Case 2011-D054” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2011-D054.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2011-D054” on your attached document. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall,(703) 602-0302.
This rule proposes to revise requirements for approving interim vouchers. Interim vouchers that are selected using sampling methodologies will be reviewed and approved by the contract auditors for provisional payment and sent to the disbursing office after a pre-payment review. Interim vouchers not selected for a pre-payment review will be considered to be provisionally approved and will be sent directly to the disbursing office. All provisionally approved interim vouchers are subject to a later audit of actual costs incurred.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows:
The objective of the rule is to revise requirements for approving interim vouchers. DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No known significant alternatives to the rule have been identified.
At this time, DoD is unable to estimate the number of small entities to which this rule will apply. Therefore, DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2011-D054) in correspondence.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 242 is proposed for amendment as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 242 is revised to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
2. In § 242.803 revise paragraph (b)(i) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(i) The contract auditor is the authorized representative of the contracting officer for—
(A) Receiving vouchers from contractors and approving interim vouchers when directed by the terms of the contract;
(B) Approving interim vouchers that were selected using DCAA sampling methodologies for provisional payment and sending them to the disbursing office after a pre-payment review. Interim vouchers not selected for a pre-payment review will be considered to be provisionally approved and will be sent directly to the disbursing office. All provisionally approved interim vouchers are subject to a later audit of actual costs incurred;
(C) Reviewing completion/final vouchers and sending them to the administrative contracting officer; and
(D) Issuing DCAA Forms 1, Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved, to deduct costs where allowability is questionable.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB” or the “Bureau”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Bureau is soliciting comments regarding a proposed information collection to identify financial education strategies that are effective in educating consumers to make better informed financial decisions, pursuant to the Bureau's authorities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before March 19, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CFPB-2012-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. In general all comments received will be posted without change to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Monica Jackson, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (202) 435-7275.
The CFPB expects to collect quantitative and qualitative data through in-person, telephone, or Internet based surveys. The information collected through quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods will increase OFE's understanding of what interventions can improve financial decisionmaking skills and outcomes for consumers.
The core objective of the data collection is to measure the effectiveness of selected financial education programs. This data will provide useful information on evidence-based practices that can be used to improve financial education programs nationwide, leading to better financial decisionmaking outcomes for adult consumers.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed revision to an information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The CFPB is soliciting comments regarding the information collection requirements under OMB control number 3170-0001, Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans.
Written comments must be received on or before March 19, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2012-0001, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Requests for additional information should be directed to Dan Quan, Research, Markets & Regulations, at (202) 435-7678.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or the Bureau) is soliciting comments concerning the currently approved information collections associated with certain recently published interim final rules. This notice is published by the CFPB as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden. The public and other Federal agencies are invited to take this opportunity to comment on this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2012 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number CFPB-2012-0002 and the relevant OMB control numbers listed below, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In general, all comments will be posted without change to
Requests for additional information may be obtained by contacting Chris Willey, Chief Information Officer, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street, Washington, DC 20006.
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from seven Federal agencies to the CFPB as of July 21, 2011.
The burden hours associated with the collections identified below are not new burden hours. Rather, they are transfers of burden hours from the transferor agencies. In obtaining emergency approval, the CFPB's estimates of the burden of the following information collections were based on the assumption that the total ongoing burden for these regulations, across all agencies, remained the same as it was before the regulations were restated by the CFPB. Furthermore, the CFPB primarily relied on the estimates previously developed by the transferor agencies concerning the number of entities subject to the regulations and the hours of paperwork burden under the statutes. To comply with the requirements under 44 U.S.C. 3506, the CFPB requests public comment on the following collections:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of Proposed Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, hereinto referred to as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”), gives notice of the establishment of a Privacy Act System of Records.
Comments must be received no later than February 21, 2012. The new system of records will be effective February 28, 2012, unless the comments received result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2012-0004, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Claire Stapleton, Chief Privacy Officer, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, (202) 435-7220.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”), Public Law 111-203, Title X, established the CFPB to administer and enforce Federal consumer financial protection law. The CFPB will maintain the records covered by this notice.
The new system of records described in this notice “CFPB.013 -CFPB External Contact Database” will maintain records concerning the activities and operations of the CFPB's external affairs activities.
The report of the new system of records has been submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r).
The system of records entitled “CFPB.013—CFPB External Contact Database” is published in its entirety below.
CFPB External Contact Database.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington DC, 20006.
Individuals covered by this system include all individuals involved in CFPB communications with external affairs related activities, (1) Media representatives (including, without limitations, newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, wire service, or any other form of media) who request interviews or meetings with the CFPB staff; (2) individuals who accompany the CFPB staff on official travel; (3) individuals who request building passes for access to the CFPB facility (including, without limitations, media representatives, correspondents, technicians, and/or producers); (4) individuals who request information from the CFPB Communications Office concerning specific issues and/or topics; (5) individuals who have been contacted for media events, interviews or meetings, occasions, invitations, travel opportunities or the placement of articles; (6) individuals on the mailing list for the CFPB speeches or updates; (7) individuals who request the CFPB accept a speaking engagement, accept an honor, attend a function, or request information about the CFPB, and its mission and/or policies, etc.; (8) individuals who have participated in a survey or focus group sponsored by the CFPB; (9) CFPB contacts of nongovernmental organizations throughout the United States (media, external affairs, educational, etc.); (10) officials of Federal, state and local governments; (11) present and past CFPB staff (assignment history); (12) CFPB staff authorized to perform domestic speaking/media engagements; and (13) CFPB staff involved external affairs related communications.
Records in the system will include information related to communications with external affairs contacts. Such records include: (1) Contact information (name, business phone number, email address) for individuals who are involved in the operation of the CFPB's external affairs activities; (2) domestic travel records, including dates, places
Public Law 111-203, Title X, sections 1011, 1012, 1021, codified at 12 U.S.C. 5491, 5492, 5511.
The purpose of the system is to enable the CFPB to communicate with the American public about its mission and activities. The information will be used to facilitate the CFPB's activities, including external contacts with the media, non-profits, academia, and the private sector. The information collected will also facilitate CFPB events and press conferences.
These records may be disclosed, consistent with the CFPB's rules relating to Disclosure of Records and Information. Rules are promulgated at 12 CFR part 1070
(1) Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (a) The CFPB suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the CFPB has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the CFPB or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the CFPB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm;
(2) Another Federal or state agency to (a) permit a decision as to access, amendment or correction of records to be made in consultation with or by that agency, or (b) verify the identity of an individual or the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested access to or amendment or correction of records;
(3) To the Office of the President in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record or a third party on that person's behalf;
(4) Congressional offices in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;
(5) Contractors, agents, or other authorized individuals performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity on behalf of the CFPB or Federal Government and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities;
(6) The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for its use in providing legal advice to the CFPB or in representing the CFPB in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the CFPB is authorized to appear, where the use of such information by the DOJ is deemed by the CFPB to be relevant and necessary to the litigation, and such proceeding names as a party or interests:
(a) The CFPB;
(b) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her official capacity;
(c) Any employee of the CFPB in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where the CFPB determines that litigation is likely to affect the CFPB or any of its components;
(7) A court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of an administrative proceeding or judicial proceeding, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses (including expert witnesses) in the course of discovery or other pre-hearing exchanges of information, litigation, or settlement negotiations, where relevant or potentially relevant to a proceeding, or in connection with criminal law proceedings;
(8) A grand jury pursuant either to a Federal or state grand jury subpoena, or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury, where the subpoena or request has been specifically approved by a court. In those cases where the Federal Government is not a party to the proceeding, records may be disclosed if a subpoena has been signed by a judge;
(9) Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons, to the extent necessary to secure information relevant to the CFPB's external affairs activities, including external contacts with the media, non-profits, academia, and the private sector; and
(10) Members of the media, Federal, state, and local government officials or other recipients of the CFPB's external affairs communications to inform them about attendees and invited guests of the CFPB media events and press briefings.
Paper and electronic records.
Records are retrievable by the name of the individual or organization, date of received inquiry or request, or assigned file number, email address or by some combination thereof.
Access to electronic records is restricted to authorized personnel who have been issued non-transferrable access codes and passwords. Other records are maintained in locked file cabinets or rooms with access limited to those personnel whose official duties require access.
The CFPB will maintain electronic and paper records indefinitely until the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approves the CFPB's records disposition schedule.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Media Relations Officer, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Attn: 1801 L Street NW.), Washington, DC 20220.
Individuals seeking notification and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in writing in accordance with instructions appearing in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the CFR, “Disclosure of Records and Information.” Address such requests to: Chief Privacy Officer, Bureau of
See “Notification Procedures” above.
See “Notification Procedures” above.
Information in this system is obtained directly from the individual who is the subject of these records, and/or the agency or organization that the individual represents; and the CFPB staff involved in the external affairs operations.
None.
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).
The HSFCA also requires vessels be marked for identification and enforcement purposes. Vessels must be marked in three locations (port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on a weatherdeck) with their official number or radio call sign.
Operators of vessels licensed under the HSFCA are also required to report their catch and fishing effort when fishing on the high seas. The requirement is for fishery management purposes and to provide data to international organizations. Vessels already maintaining logbooks under other specific regulations are not required to maintain an additional logbook.
These requirements apply to all vessels fishing on the high seas.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect demographic, cultural, economic, and social information about the snapper-grouper fisheries in the United States (U.S.) Caribbean. The proposed survey also intends to inquire about industry's perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding the potential use of catch shares to manage these fisheries. The data gathered will be used to describe the current socio-economic condition of the fishery and offer insight into fishermen's concerns about a potential catch share program, which could be used to better tailor a potential program. In addition, the information collected will be used to strengthen and improve fishery management decision-making, satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12866, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1881
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0366, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of Proposed Amendment to Privacy Act System of Records, “Investigative and Inspection Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12.”
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Appendix I, “Federal Agency Responsibility for Maintaining Records about Individuals,” DOC OIG proposes to amend the system of records entitled “Investigative and Inspection Records—COMMERCE/DEPT-12,” to include the new automated Inspector General Complaint Intake Reporting and Tracking System (“IG-CIRTS”); change the system name to “OIG Investigative Records”; update OIG routine uses; update OIG's practices for electronically storing, retrieving, and safeguarding records in the System, and generally update the systems notice. The new system will enhance efficiency in the complaint intake and case tracking processes, reduce burdens of paper storage, and update protections in access and storage of information within the records system. Accordingly, “Investigative and Inspection Records—COMMERCE/DEPT—12,” published in the
Please address comments to Counsel to the Inspector General, Room 7892, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; by email to
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, authorizes DOC OIG to conduct investigations to detect and prevent fraud, waste, mismanagement and abuse, and to promote economy and efficiency, in the DOC's programs and operations. OIG uses records in this system in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct, and in supporting related judicial and administrative proceedings. OIG's Office of Investigations (OI) maintains and manages OIG's investigative records. The updates to the system will not involve the collection of additional categories of information, but will provide methods for data tracking and retrieval previously unavailable. The new system will enhance efficiency in the complaint intake and case tracking processes, reduce burdens of paper storage, and update protections in access and storage of information within the records system.
COMMERCE/DEPT-12, OIG Investigative Records.
Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Regional Offices, and investigative site(s) used in the course of OIG investigation(s).
In connection with its investigative duties, DOC OIG maintains records in its records system on the following categories of individuals insofar as they are relevant to any investigation or preliminary inquiry undertaken to determine whether to commence an investigation: subjects of investigations; complainants; witnesses; confidential and non-confidential informants; contractors; subcontractors; recipients of Federal funds and their contractors/subcontractors and employees; individuals interacting with DOC employees or management; current, former, and prospective DOC
The system contains investigative reports and materials gathered or created with regard to investigations of administrative, civil, and criminal matters by DOC OIG and other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, non-governmental, international, foreign regulatory, or foreign law enforcement agencies or entities. Categories of records may include: complaints; requests to investigate; information contained in criminal, civil, or administrative referrals; statements from subjects and/or witnesses; affidavits, transcripts, police reports, photographs, and/or documents relative to a subject's prior criminal record; medical records; accident reports; materials and intelligence information from other governmental investigatory or law enforcement organizations; information relative to the status of a particular complaint or investigation, including any determination relative to criminal prosecution, civil, or administrative action; general case management documentation; subpoenas and evidence obtained in response to subpoenas; evidence logs; pen registers; correspondence; records of investigation; and other data and evidence collected or generated by OIG's Office of Investigations while conducting its official duties.
The Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended.
The records contained in this system are used by DOC OIG to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended, to conduct and supervise investigations, prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in DOC programs and operations. The records are used in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct and in supporting related judicial and administrative proceedings.
1. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, state or local agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current license, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DOC decision concerning the assignment, hiring, or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit.
2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that Circular.
5. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of Justice in connection with determining whether disclosure thereof is required by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
6. A record in this system may be transferred, as a routine use, to the Office of Personnel Management for personnel research purposes; as a data source for management information; for the production of summary descriptive statistics and analytical studies in support of the function for which the records are collected and maintained; or for related manpower studies.
7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services, or his or her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose and any other relevant (i.e. GSA or DOC) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals.
8. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency or entity, whether Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international, charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting a violation of any law, rule, regulation or order. Routine use for law enforcement purposes also includes disclosure to individuals or to agencies, whether Federal, State, local, foreign, or international, when necessary to further the ends of an investigation.
9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or of any other agency that is responsible for representing DOC interests in connection with judicial, administrative or other proceedings. This includes circumstances in which (1) The DOC or OIG, or any component thereof; (2) any employee of the DOC or OIG in his or her official capacity; (3) any employee of the DOC or OIG in his or her individual capacity, where DOJ has agreed to represent or is considering a request to represent the employee; or (4) the United States or any of its components, is a party to pending or potential litigation or has an interest in such litigation; in which the DOC or OIG is likely to be affected by the litigation, or in which the DOC or OIG determines that the use of such records by the DOJ is relevant and necessary to the litigation; provided, however, that in each case, the DOC or OIG determines that disclosure of records to the DOJ or representative is a use of the information that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected. Records may also be disclosed to representatives of DOJ and other U.S. Government entities, to the extent necessary, to obtain their advice on any matter relevant to an OIG investigation.
10. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any source from which additional information is requested in order to obtain information relevant to: a decision by either the DOC or OIG concerning the hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual or other personnel action; the issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or
11. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, international, or other public authority in response to its request in connection with: the hiring, assignment, or retention of an individual; the issuance, renewal, retention, or revocation of a security clearance; the reporting of an investigation of an individual; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance, retention, or revocation of a license, grant, award, contract, or other benefit conferred by that entity to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting entity's decision on the matter.
12. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the event that a record, either by itself or in combination with other information, indicates a violation or a potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto; or a violation or potential violation of a contract provision. In these circumstances, the relevant records in the system may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency or entity, whether Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, order, or contract.
13. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any source from which additional information is requested, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to solicit information relevant to any investigation, audit, or evaluation.
14. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a foreign government or international organization pursuant to an international treaty, convention, implementing legislation, or executive agreement entered into by the United States.
15. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to contractors, grantees, consultants, or volunteers performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for the DOC or OIG, who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities. When appropriate, recipients will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 as provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
16. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to representatives of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and other Federal agencies in connection with their efforts to carry out their responsibilities to conduct examinations, investigations, and/or settlement efforts, in connection with administrative grievances, complaints, claims, or appeals filed by an employee, and such other functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205-06.
17. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a grand jury agent pursuant to a Federal or State grand jury subpoena or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury.
18. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Departments of the Treasury and Justice in circumstances in which OIG seeks to obtain, or has in fact obtained, an ex parte court order to obtain tax return information from the Internal Revenue Service.
19. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any Federal official charged with the responsibility to conduct qualitative assessment reviews of internal safeguards and management procedures employed in investigative operations for purposes of reporting to the President and Congress on the activities of OIG. This disclosure category includes other Federal Offices of Inspectors General and members of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and officials and administrative staff within their investigative chain of command, as well as authorized officials of DOJ and its component, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
20. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) It is suspected or determined that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) it is determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by OIG, DOC, or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
21. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public or to the media for release to the public, following consultation with the DOC Chief Privacy Officer, when the matter under investigation has become public knowledge or the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the Inspector General audit, inspection, review, or investigative process, or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DOC employees, officers or individuals covered by the system, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
22. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to Congress, congressional committees, or the staffs thereof, in order to fulfill the Inspector General's responsibility, as mandated by the Inspector General Act of 1978, to keep the Congress, in connection with its oversight and legislative functions concerning the administration of programs and operations administered or financed by DOC, fully and currently informed concerning fraud and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies concerning the administration of programs and operations administered or financed by DOC.
None.
Paper records and other media (photographs, audio recording, diskettes, CDs, etc.) are stored in GSA-approved security containers with combination locks in a secured area. Electronic records are maintained on two servers, a data server which maintains the IG-CIRTS database, and a file server which maintains case files
Paper records are retrieved by alphabetical indices cross referenced to file numbers. Electronic records are retrieved via `Secure Socket Layer' (SSL) encryption search mechanisms. Electronic searches may be performed by search criteria that include case numbers, names of individuals or organizations, and other key word search variations.
Paper records are kept in locked cabinets, secured rooms, in a guarded building, and used only by authorized screened personnel. Electronic records are stored on two servers maintained in a locked facility that is secured at all times by security systems and video cameras. Data in the system are encrypted and password protected. Access to electronic records is restricted to DOC OIG staff individually authorized to access the IG-CIRTS application. Passwords are changed every 90 days. Backup tapes are stored in a locked and controlled room in a secure off-site facility.
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the DOC OIG Records Retention Schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Room 7898c, Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Inspector General has exempted this system from the procedures of the Privacy Act relating to individuals' requests for notification of the existence of records on themselves.
The Inspector General has exempted this system from the access procedures of the Privacy Act.
The Inspector General has exempted this system from the contest procedures of the Privacy Act.
DOC OIG collects information from a wide variety of sources, including information from the DOC and other Federal, State, and local agencies, subjects, witnesses, complainants, victims, confidential and non-confidential sources, individuals, and non-governmental entities.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the head of any agency may exempt any system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, if the agency or component that maintains the system performs as its principal function any activities pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. The Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3, as amended, mandates the Inspector General to recommend policies for, and to conduct, supervise and coordinate activities in the Department and between the Department and other Federal, State and local government agencies with respect to all matters relating to the prevention and detection of fraud in programs and operations administered or financed by the Department, and to the identification and prosecution of participants in such fraud. Under the Act, whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal criminal law, the Inspector General must report the matter expeditiously to the Attorney General. In addition to these principal functions pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, the Inspector General may receive and investigate complaints on information from various sources concerning the possible existence of activities constituting violations of law, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuses of authority or substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. The provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 from which exemptions are claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), (2) and (3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) and (8); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f); 5 U.S.C. 552a(g).
To the extent that the exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) is held to be invalid, then the exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5) are claimed for all material which meets the criteria of these three subsections.
Provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 from which exemptions are claimed under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1); 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (H), and (I); 5 U.S.C. 552a(f).
Reasons for exemptions: In general, the exemption of this information and material is necessary in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of the Office of Inspector General, to prevent disclosure of classified information as required by Executive Order, to prevent subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel. Detailed reasons follow:
Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2):
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that upon request, an agency must give an individual named in a record an accounting which reflects the disclosure of the record to other persons or agencies. This accounting must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subjects with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(4), (d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), (f) and (g) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records; and the civil remedies available to the individual in the event of adverse determinations by an agency concerning access to or amendment of information contained in records systems. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual, or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings, deprive co-defendants of a right to a fair trial or other impartial adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others, disclose the identity or confidential sources, reveal confidential information supplied by these sources and disclose
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to identify, detect, and apprehend violators.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of a criminal or other investigation.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which related to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
(5) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(2) requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privilege under Federal programs. The application of the provision would impair investigations of illegal acts, violations of the rules of conduct, merit system and any other misconduct for the following reasons:
a. In certain instances the subject of an investigation cannot be required to supply information to investigators. In those instances, information relating to a subject's illegal acts, violations of rules of conduct, or any other misconduct, etc., must be obtained from other sources.
b. Most information collected about an individual under investigation is obtained from third parties such as witnesses and informers. It is not feasible to rely upon the subject of the investigation as a source for information regarding his or her activities.
c. The subject of an investigation will be alerted to the existence of an investigation if any attempt is made to obtain information from subject. This could afford the individual the opportunity to conceal any criminal activities to avoid apprehension.
d. In any investigation, it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources other than the subject of the investigation in order to verify the evidence necessary for successful litigation.
(6) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(3) requires that an agency must inform the subject of an investigation who is asked to supply information of:
a. The authority under which the information is sought and whether disclosure of the information is mandatory or voluntary,
b. The purposes for which the information is intended to be used,
c. The routine uses which may be made of the information, and
d. The effects on the subject, if any, of not providing the requested information. The reasons for exempting this system of records from the foregoing provision are as follows:
(i) The disclosure to the subject of the investigation as stated in (b) above would provide the subject with substantial information relating to the nature of the investigation and could impede or compromise the investigation.
(ii) If the subject were informed of the information required by this provision, it could seriously interfere with undercover activities requiring disclosure of undercover agents' identity and impairing their safety, as well as impairing the successful conclusion of the investigation.
(iii) Individuals may be contacted during preliminary information-gathering in investigations before any individual is identified as the subject of an investigation. Informing the individual of the matters required by this provision would hinder or adversely affect any present or subsequent investigations.
(7) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) requires that records be maintained with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in making any determination about an individual. Because the law defines “maintain” to include the collection of information, complying with this provision would prevent the collection of any data not shown to be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete at the moment of its collection. In gathering information during the course of an investigation it is not possible to determine this prior to collection of the information. Facts are first gathered and then placed into a logical order which objectively proves or disproves criminal behavior on the part of the suspect. Material which may seem unrelated, irrelevant, incomplete, untimely, etc., may take on added meaning as an investigation progresses. The restrictions in this provision could interfere with the preparation of a complete investigative report.
(8) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(8) requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record of such individual is made available to any persons; under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record. The notice requirements of this provision could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.
Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1):
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the record at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation, and that such persons are subjects of that investigation, information which if known might cause damage to national security.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records, and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose the identity of sources kept secret to protect national security.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation involving national security matters.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after the information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violators of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interests of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which relate to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
Reasons for exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5):
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires that an agency make accountings of disclosures of records available to individuals named in the records at their request. These accountings must state the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure of the record and the name and address of the recipient. The application of this provision would alert subjects of an investigation to the existence of the investigation and that such persons are subjects of that investigation. Since release of such information to subjects of an investigation would provide the subject with significant information concerning the nature of the investigation, it could result in the altering or destruction of documentary evidence, improper influencing of witnesses, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) relate to an individual's right to be notified of the existence of records pertaining to such individual; requirements for identifying an individual who requests access to records; and the agency procedures relating to access to records and the contest of information contained in such records. This system is exempt from the foregoing provisions for the following reasons: To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings; co-defendants of a right to a fair trial; constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others; disclose the identity of confidential sources and reveal confidential information supplied by these sources; and disclose investigative techniques and procedures.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(I) requires the publication of the categories of sources of records in each system of records. The application of this provision could disclose investigative techniques and procedures and cause sources to refrain from giving such information because of fear of reprisal, or fear of breach of promises of anonymity and confidentiality. This would compromise the ability to conduct investigations, and to make fair and objective decisions on questions of suitability for Federal employment and related issues.
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required by statute or Executive Order. An exemption from the foregoing is needed:
a. Because it is not possible to detect relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation.
b. Relevance and necessity are questions of judgment and timing. What appears relevant and necessary when collected may ultimately be determined to be unnecessary. It is only after that information is evaluated that the relevance and necessity of such information can be established.
c. In any investigation the Inspector General may obtain information concerning the violations of laws other than those within the scope of his or her jurisdiction. In the interest of effective law enforcement, the Inspector General should retain this information as it may aid in establishing patterns of criminal activity, and provide leads for those law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing other segments of criminal or civil law.
d. In interviewing persons, or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, information may be supplied to the investigator which relate to matters incidental to the main purpose of the investigation but which may relate to matters under investigative jurisdiction of another agency. Such information cannot readily be segregated.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before March 19, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, 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
The Annual Services Report (ASR), previously named Service Annual Survey (SAS), produces annual nationwide estimates of revenue and expenses for service industries. These service industries include all or portions of the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors: Utilities (NAICS 22); Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48 and 49); Information (NAICS 51); Finance and Insurance (NAICS 52); Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (NAICS 53); Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 54); Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 56); Educational Services (NAICS 61); Health Care and Social Assistance (NAICS 62); Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 71); and Other Services (NAICS 81).
For selected industries in Utilities; Transportation; Finance; Information; Professional, Scientific and Technical Services; Administrative Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services; and Educational Services, ASR produces estimates of revenue by detailed North American Product Classification System (NAPCS) products. Inventory estimates for selected industries in the Transportation and Information sectors are produced, as well as estimates of expanded revenues for selected industries across multiple sectors. For industries with a significant non-profit component, separate estimates are developed for taxable firms and organizations exempt from federal income tax.
These data are needed to provide a sound statistical basis for the formation of policy by various governmental agencies. The Census Bureau is authorized by Title 13, United States Code, to conduct surveys necessary to furnish current data on subjects covered by the major censuses. These surveys provide continuing and timely national statistical data for the period between economic censuses.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the primary Federal user of these annual program statistics, uses the information in developing the national income and product accounts, compiling benchmark and annual input-output tables, and computing Gross Domestic Product by industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as inputs to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use the data in the development of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. The Federal Communications Commission uses the data as a means for assessing FCC policy. The Coalition of Service Industries uses the data for general research and planning. Trade and professional organizations uses the data to analyze industry trends and benchmark their own statistical programs, develop forecasts, and evaluate regulatory requirements. The media uses the data for news reports and background information. Private businesses use the data to measure market share; analyze business potential; and plan investment decisions. The Census Bureau uses the data to provide new insight into changing structural and cost conditions that will impact the planning and design of future economic census questionnaires. Private industry also uses the data as a tool for marketing analysis.
Data are collected from all of the largest firms and from a sample of small- and medium-sized businesses selected using a stratified sampling procedure. The samples are reselected periodically, generally at 5-year intervals. The largest firms continue to be canvassed when the sample is re-drawn, while nearly all of the small- and medium-sized firms from the prior sample are replaced. We collect these data by using a mail-out/mail-back and online survey questionnaire.
We collect this information by mail, Internet, fax, and telephone follow-up.
Title 13 U.S.C. 182, 224, and 225.
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.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Piedmont Triad Partnership, grantee of FTZ 230, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (74 FR 1170, 1/12/09 (correction 74 FR 3987, 1/22/09); 75 FR 71069-71070, 11/22/10). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of general-purpose zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a general-purpose zone project. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part
FTZ 230 was approved by the Board on March 11, 1998 (Board Order 956, 63 FR 13836-13837, 3/23/98) and expanded on June 21, 2007 (Board Order 1514, 72 FR 35968, 07/02/07).
The current zone project includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry and Yadkin Counties, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within/adjacent to the Winston-Salem Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone project under the ASF as follows: To renumber parcel 2 of Site 2 as Site 16; to renumber parcel 3 of Site 2 as Site 17; to renumber parcel 2 of Site 3 as Site 18; to renumber parcel 2 of Site 8 as Site 19; to renumber parcel A of Site 11 as Site 20; to renumber parcel C of Site 11 as Site 21; and to renumber parcel D of Site 11 as Site 22. Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22 would become magnet sites, and Sites 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 19 would become usage-driven sites.
The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that modified magnet Site 2 would be so exempted. Because the ASF only pertains to establishing or reorganizing a general-purpose zone, the application would have no impact on FTZ 230's authorized subzones.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 19, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 3, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
An application has been submitted to the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Fargo Municipal Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 267, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within Site 2 of FTZ 267 at two CNH America, LLC (CNH) facilities, located in Fargo, North Dakota. The application was filed on January 12, 2012.
The CNH facilities (761 employees, capacity—up to 7,200 agricultural tractors and 4,000 construction wheel loaders/year) were approved by the Board in 2009 for the manufacture of agricultural tractors (HTSUS 8701.90) and construction wheel loaders (HTSUS 8429.51) (Board Order 1639, 74 FR 41373, 8/17/2009). Under T/IM procedures, CNH has requested additional authority to produce certain related subassemblies and parts of tractors, combines, and wheel loaders. The additional activity would involve the manufacture of the following equipment (approx. 1,000 units of each/year): Cabs for agricultural tractors and other special-purpose vehicles (HTSUS 8707.90, duty rate range—free to 4%); track-laying tractors for agriculture and construction (HTSUS 8701.30, duty-free); cabs and steps for construction equipment (HTSUS 8431.49, duty-free); combine parts and subassemblies, including undercarriages and track kits
FTZ procedures could exempt CNH from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. The company anticipates that 30 to 45 percent of the facilities' shipments will be exported. On its domestic sales, CNH would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the finished subassemblies and parts (duty rate range, duty-free to 4%) for the foreign inputs noted above.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Diane Finver of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations pursuant to Board Orders 1347 and 1480.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the following address: Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230. The closing period for their receipt is February 21, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed above, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Paul Stolz or Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202) 482-6231, respectively.
On June 28, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. We determine that completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable because the Department requires additional time to analyze information pertaining to the respondents' sales practices, factors of production, and to issue supplemental questionnaires and review the responses. Therefore, we require additional time to complete these preliminary results. As a result, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for completion of the preliminary results of this review by 90 days until April 30, 2012.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The National Advisory Council for Minority Business Enterprise (NACMBE) will hold its fifth meeting to discuss the work of the three subcommittees and deliverables to
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 6, 2012 from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
This meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Demetria Gallagher, National Director's Office, Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-1624,
Topics to be considered: During the meeting the three subcommittees will report on their work and the Council will discuss and deliberate on possible recommendations. The Subcommittee topics include: (1) Definition of Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) and MBDA's role, (2) Creation of an MBE Forum, and (3) Strategic Alliances & Exports.
A limited amount of time, in the afternoon, will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning affairs of the NACMBE at
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Demetria Gallagher, at (202) 482-1624, or
Copies of the NACMBE open meeting minutes will be available to the public upon request.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received an application from Ocean Renewable Power Company Maine, LLC (ORPC) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to pile driving in Cobscook Bay, Maine. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing to issue an IHA to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment, four species of marine mammals during the specified activity within a specific geographic region and is requesting comments on its proposal.
Comments and information must be received no later than February 21, 2012.
Comments on the application and this proposal should be addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
A copy of the application containing a list of the references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On November 2, 2011, NMFS received an application from ORPC requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of harbor seal (
ORPC plans to build, deploy, monitor, and test a single-device tidal turbine as the first phase of a long-term project with the ultimate goal of generating and delivering electricity to an on-shore location in Lubec, Maine and connecting to the Bangor Hydro Electric Company power grid. The long-term project would be carried out in two separate phases over an expected 8-year pilot license term. Because elevated sound levels from pile driving during the first phase of the project have the potential to result in marine mammal harassment, NMFS is proposing to issue an IHA for take incidental to pile driving activities.
ORPC proposes to install foundational piles to support an underwater tidal turbine unit. The turbine unit is approximately 98 feet (ft) long, 17 ft high, and 17 ft wide and is attached to a bottom support frame, which holds the unit in place about 15 ft above the sea floor. The turbine unit weighs about 69,000 pounds (lbs) and is coupled with the bottom support frame to comprise what is called a single-device TidGen
A total of 11 piles (10 for the foundation and one for mounting environmental monitoring equipment) would be driven from a moored barge for the first phase. Piles would be placed about six m (20 ft) apart in two rows of five and the rows would be separated by about 15 m (50 ft). Geotechnical data shows that the TidGen
ORPC would use an H&M model H-1700 vibratory hammer to drive piles to the extent possible. If additional energy is required to reach bedrock, a Berminghammer model B-3505 diesel impact hammer would be used, with maximum rated impact energy of 21,533 ft-lb. ORPC expects that the need for an impact hammer would be minimal and for very short durations. To lessen the amount and intensity of sound propagation, ORPC would evaluate the use of wooden sound absorption cushions and/or bubble curtains.
ORPC plans to begin pile driving on March 1, 2012. Pile driving with a vibratory hammer would take up to 3 minutes per pile and pile driving with an impact hammer would take up to 5 minutes per pile. Due to strong currents during ebb and flood tides, pile driving would occur during slack tides only. ORPC expects that only one pile would be driven per slack tide period, for a total of 7-12 days of pile driving during daylight hours only. Pile driving could occur for up to 90 minutes per slack tide, with the potential for two slack tide pile driving sessions per day. NMFS Northeast Regional Office recommends that in-water construction involving pile driving be conducted between November 8 and April 9 to avoid impacts to fisheries resources. However, ORPC may be able to conduct pile driving activities after April 9 if they can demonstrate that noise levels caused by the impact hammer are below NMFS' guidelines. Although pile driving is only expected to last 7-12 days, NMFS would issue the IHA for a 1-year period to allow for permitting and weather delays. Pile driving would only occur in weather that provides adequate visibility for marine mammal monitoring activities.
The proposed activity would occur in Cobscook Bay, in between Lubec and Eastport, Maine. Piles and other deployment materials would be transported by barge from a staging area at the Eastport Boat School or other local access point. Cobscook Bay has extremely strong tidal currents and notably high tides, creating an extensive intertidal habitat for marine and coastal species. Water depth at the proposed project location is 26 m (85 ft) at mean lower low water. The Bay is considered a relatively intact marine system, as the area has not experienced much industrialization.
Sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference
Source levels for the vibratory and impact hammer are expected to be 175 dB and 190 dB, respectively. Assuming a practical spreading loss of 15 log R, OPRC estimates that the 180-dB (Level A) isopleth for the impact hammer could be as far as 100 m (328 ft). Based on similar estimates, the 160-dB (Level B) isopleth for the impact hammer could be about 1,800 m (5,906 ft) The 120-dB (Level B for continuous sound sources) isopleth for the vibratory hammer could be as far as 4,600 m (2.5 mi).
Marine mammals with known presence in this region of Cobscook Bay are the harbor seal, grey seal, harbor porpoise, and Atlantic white-sided dolphin. ORPC has been conducting incidental visual observations of marine mammals in Cobscook Bay since 2007, for a total effort of 252 4-hr observational periods over 222 days. During this time, marine mammal observers have recorded 57 seals, 47 harbor porpoises, and two Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Table 2). No observations of any whale species have been made in Cobscook Bay by ORPC since monitoring began in 2007. In addition, a review of available databases does not indicate any recorded whale sightings in Cobscook Bay. Other species that may possibly occur in the vicinity of the proposed activity include North Atlantic right whale (
Harbor seals are typically found in temperate coastal habitats and use rocks, reefs, beaches, and drifting glacial ice as haul outs and pupping sites. On the east coast, they range from the Canadian Arctic to southern New England, New York, and occasionally the Carolinas. There are an estimated 91,000 harbor seals in the western North Atlantic stock and the population is increasing. Harbor seals are not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) nor considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at:
Gray seals reside in coastal waters and also inhabit islands, sandbars, ice shelves, and icebergs. The western North Atlantic stock ranges from eastern Canada to the northeastern United States. Current population numbers for the western North Atlantic stocks are unknown, but are estimated at over 250,000 animals. Most recent population estimates show increases in abundance in Canada and the United States, although the population in the Gulf of St. Lawrence appears to be declining. Gray seals pup at two established colonies off the coast of Maine: Green Island and Seal Island. Both colonies are tens of miles away from the proposed project site. Gray seals are not listed under the ESA nor considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at
Pinnipeds produce a wide range of social signals, most occurring at relatively low frequencies (Southall
Harbor porpoises reside in northern temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore waters. They are commonly found in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fjords less than 200 m (650 ft) deep. In the western North Atlantic, harbor porpoises range from west Greenland to
Cetaceans are divided into three functional hearing groups: low-frequency, mid-frequency, and high-frequency. Harbor porpoises are considered high-frequency cetaceans and the estimated auditory bandwidth (lower to upper frequency hearing cut-off) for this group ranges from 200 Hz to 180 kHz.
Atlantic white-sided dolphins are only found in temperate waters of the North Atlantic Ocean and typically reside along the continental shelf and slope. They range from Greenland to North Carolina and exhibit seasonal movements between inshore northern waters and southern offshore waters. The western North Atlantic stock has an estimated 63,000 animals, but there is insufficient information to determine population trends. Atlantic white-sided dolphins are not listed under the ESA nor considered depleted under the MMPA. More information, including stock assessment reports, can be found at:
Atlantic white-sided dolphins, like harbor porpoises, are considered mid-frequency cetaceans and their estimated auditory bandwidth ranges from 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
Elevated in-water sound levels from pile driving in the proposed project area may temporarily impact marine mammal behavior. Elevated in-air sound levels are not a concern because the nearest significant pinniped haul-out is more than six nautical miles (NM) away. Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. For example, lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and animals are natural sound sources throughout the marine environment. Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to, (1) social interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance or received levels will depend on the sound source, ambient noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson
Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified either as temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for at what received level PTS occurs in marine mammals; therefore, it must be estimated from at what received levels the onset of TTS occurs and the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels. PTS is likely if the animal's hearing threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB of TTS. PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to days, but is recoverable. TTS also occurs in specific frequency ranges; therefore, an animal might experience a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity only between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz, for example. The amount of change in hearing sensitivity is also variable and could be reduced by 6 dB or 30 dB, for example. Recent literature highlights the inherent complexity of predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound,
The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans (such as Atlantic white-sided dolphins) to non-pulse sounds (like vibratory pile driving) include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps) including: Pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, acoustic harassment devices (AHDs), acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs), mid-frequency active sonar, and non-pulse bands and tones. Southall
The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans (such as the harbor porpoise) to non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps), including: Pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor porpoises. Southall
There are limited data available on the behavioral effects of non-pulse noise on pinnipeds while underwater; however, field and captive studies to date collectively suggest that pinnipeds do not react strongly to exposures between 90 and 140 dB re: 1 μPa; no data exist from exposures at higher levels. Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed wild harbor seal reactions to high-frequency acoustic harassment devices around nine sites. Seals came within 44 m of the active acoustic harassment devices and failed to demonstrate any behavioral response when received SPLs were estimated at 120-130 dB. In a captive study (Kastelein, 2006), scientists subjected a group of seals to non-pulse sounds between 8 and 16 kHz. Exposures between 80 and 107 dB did not induce strong behavioral responses; however, a single observation from 100 to 110 dB indicated an avoidance response. The seals returned to baseline conditions shortly following exposure. Southall
Southall
The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to impulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to several different sources, including: Small explosives, impact pile driving, and airgun arrays. Quantitative data on reactions of pinnipeds to impulse sounds is limited, but a general finding is that exposures in the 150 to 180 dB range generally have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior (Southall
No impacts to marine mammal reproduction are anticipated because there are no known pinniped rookeries within the proposed project area and Cobscook Bay is not a known breeding ground for cetaceans. NMFS expects any impacts to marine mammal behavior to be temporary, Level B harassment (for example, avoidance or alteration of behavior). ORPC conservatively assumes 12 pile driving days may occur over the validity of the IHA. Marine mammal injury or mortality is not likely, as the 180 dB isopleth (NMFS' Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans) for the impact hammer is expected to be no more than a 100-m (328 ft) radius. ORPC proposes to continuously monitor a 152-m (500-ft) area around the sound source and cease all pile driving if a marine mammal is observed nearing or within this 152-m (500-ft) isopleth.
No permanent detrimental impacts to marine mammal habitat are expected to result from the proposed project. Disturbance in the water column would be limited to the area of each pile. Turbidity resulting from pile driving activity would be limited because pile driving would only occur at slack tide and the seafloor geology in the proposed action area is predominantly gravel and cobbles. Pile driving (resulting in temporary ensonification) may impact prey species and marine mammals by causing avoidance or abandonment of the area; however these impacts are expected to be local and temporary. The benthic impact of the foundation for this phase of the proposed project would be about 113 ft
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
ORPC proposed the following mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals:
When using a diesel impact hammer to “proof” piles, ORPC would use wooden sound absorption cushions and/or a bubble curtain to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels and avoid the potential for marine mammal injury. Based on previous studies, sound attenuation devices are expected to reduce sound levels by at least 5 dB.
The purpose of the proposed exclusion zone is to prevent Level A harassment (injury) of any marine mammal species. During all in-water impact pile driving, ORPC would establish a preliminary marine mammal exclusion zone around each pile to avoid exposure to sounds at or above 180 dB. The preliminary exclusion zone would have a radius of 152 m (500 ft). This encompasses the initial estimate of the 180 dB isopleth, where injury could occur, plus a 52-m (171-ft) buffer zone. The buffer zone would be established to account for the initial lack of in-water acoustic measurements. Once hydroacoustic monitoring is conducted, the exclusion zone may be adjusted upward accordingly to ensure that marine mammals are not exposed to Level A harassment sound pressure levels. The exclusion zone would be monitored continuously during impact pile driving to ensure that no marine mammals enter the area. Protected species observers (PSOs) would be stationed on two observer boats, one 152 m (500 ft) upstream and one 500 ft downstream of the installation site. One observer on each vessel would survey the exclusion zone, while the second observer would conduct behavioral monitoring outwards to a distance of 1 nm. Several floats anchored at 152 m (500 ft) and 305 m (1,000 ft) would be located around the installation site to help identify when marine mammals are entering or within the exclusion zone. An exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving or installation of concrete piles is unnecessary as source levels would not exceed the Level A harassment threshold.
If a PSO sees a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone prior to start of impact pile driving, the observer would notify the on-site project lead (or other authorized individual) who would then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved 305 m (1,000 ft) from the sound source or if the animal has not been resighted within 30 minutes. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward the 152-m (500-ft) exclusion zone during pile driving, pile driving would cease until that animal has moved 305 m (1,000 ft) and is on a path away from the exclusion zone or 30 minutes has lapsed since the last sighting.
A “soft-start” technique would be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. For vibratory pile driving, the soft-start procedure requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40-60 percent reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure would be repeated two additional times before full energy may be achieved. For impact hammering, contractors would be required to provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Soft-start procedures would be conducted any time hammering ceases for more than 30 minutes.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
Hydroacoustic monitoring would be performed at the initial installation of each pile driving method to ensure that the harassment isopleths are not extending past the calculated distances described in this notice and to assess the efficiency of the sound attenuation devices. ORPC would designate two biologically trained, on-site PSOs, approved in advance by NMFS, to monitor the exclusion zone (preliminarily set at 152 m [500 ft]) for marine mammals 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all impact pile driving activities and call for shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or approaching the exclusion zone. These PSOs would be positioned on two vessels, one anchored upstream and one anchored downstream at 152 m (500 ft) on the edge of the exclusion zone. One observer on each vessel would survey inwards toward the pile driving site and the second observer would conduct behavioral monitoring outwards to a distance of 1 nm during all impact pile driving. In addition, PSOs would be stationed at the Level B harassment isopleth 4,600 m (2.5 mi) during at least three events of vibratory pile driving to conduct behavioral monitoring. Additional PSOs would be stationed at the Level B harassment isopleth (preliminarily set at 4,600 m [2.5 mi]) on at least three days of vibratory pile driving to validate take estimates and evaluate the behavioral impacts pile driving has on marine mammals out to the Level B harassment isopleth.
Protected species observers would be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals (for example, high-quality binoculars, compass, and range-finder as well as a digital SLR camera with telephoto lens and video capability) in order to determine if animals have entered into the exclusion zone or Level B harassment isopleth and to record species, behaviors, and responses to pile driving. If hydroacoustic monitoring indicates that threshold isopleths are greater than originally calculated, ORPC would contact NMFS within 48 hours and make the necessary adjustments. Likewise, if threshold isopleths are actually less than originally calculated, downward adjustments may be made to the exclusion zone. Protected species observers would be required to submit a report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of pile driving. The report would include data from marine mammal sightings (such as date, time, location, species, group size, and behavior), any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting and environmental data for the period (wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility).
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality, ORPC would immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hrs preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities would not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with ORPC to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ORPC may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that ORPC discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that ORPC discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:
Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise is that in order to avoid the potential for injury (PTS), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB or above, respectively. This level is considered precautionary as it is likely that more intense sounds would be required before injury would actually occur (Southall
Distances to NMFS' harassment thresholds were calculated based on the expected sound levels at each source and the expected attenuation rate of sound (Table 3). The 152-m (500-ft) distance to the exclusion zone provides protected species observers plenty of time and adequate visibility to prevent marine mammals from entering the area during impact pile driving. This would prevent marine mammals from being exposed to sound levels that reach the Level A harassment threshold.
The estimated number of marine mammals potentially taken is based on ORPC's marine mammal monitoring observations between 2007 and 2010. NMFS is unaware of any other species-specific data for Cobscook Bay. Based on marine mammal sightings during that period, and the estimated number of pile driving days, ORPC requested authorization for the incidental take of four harbor and grey seals and two harbor porpoises. Based on further consultation with NMFS and further evaluation of ORPC's monitoring records between 2007 and 2010, NMFS is proposing to authorize the take of 72 total seals (because they cannot always be identified to the species-level), 72 harbor porpoises, and 12 Atlantic white-sided dolphins. The increase in proposed take is based on the maximum group size of animals observed during ORPC's marine mammal observations (
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, the number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which would be authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.
As described above, marine mammals would not be exposed to activities or sound levels which would result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Pile driving would occur in relatively shallow coastal waters of Cobscook Bay. The proposed project area is not considered significant habitat for marine mammals. The closest regular pinniped haul out is more than six NM away, which is well outside the
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS preliminarily determines that ORPC's proposed pile driving activities will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are anticipated to occur within the action area. Therefore, no effects to listed species are expected and section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice and Order.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is authorizing the National Futures Association (NFA), effective January 19, 2012, in accordance with the standards established by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Commission's regulations issued thereunder, to take the following actions: To process and grant applications for registration and withdrawals of registration with respect to swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs), and to notify of provisional registration; to confirm initial compliance with requirements applicable to SDs and MSPs under CEA Section 4s; to conduct proceedings to deny, condition, suspend, restrict or revoke the registration of any SD or MSP or of any applicant for registration in either category; to maintain records regarding SDs and MSPs; and to serve as the official custodian of those Commission records.
Effective date: January 19, 2012.
Barbara S. Gold, Associate Director, Christopher W. Cummings, Special Counsel, or Elizabeth Miller, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. Telephone Number: (202) 418-6700 and electronic mail:
In a separate document published elsewhere in today's
(a) REGISTRATION.—
(1) SWAP DEALERS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a swap dealer unless the person is registered as a swap dealer with the Commission.
(2) MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to act as a major swap participant unless the person is registered as a major swap participant with the Commission.
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A person shall register as a swap dealer or major swap participant by filing a registration application with the Commission.
(2) CONTENTS.—
(A). IN GENERAL.—The application shall be made in such form and manner as prescribed by the Commission, and shall contain such information, as the Commission considers necessary concerning the business in which the applicant is or will be engaged.
The Commission also is issuing today such amendments to Part 3 of its regulations as may be
CEA Section 4s further directs the Commission to adopt regulations applicable to SDs and MSPs with respect to the following areas: Capital and margin, reporting and recordkeeping, daily trading records, business conduct standards, documentation standards, duties, chief compliance officer,
CEA Section 8a(10) provides that the Commission may authorize any person—including an RFA—to perform any of the registration functions under the CEA. Further, CEA Section 17(
Although CEA Section 17 provides that `[a]ny association of persons may be registered with the Commission as a registered futures association,” to date, NFA is the sole association that has applied for and has been granted registration as a futures association with the Commission.
The Commission further notes that it has, by prior Orders, authorized NFA to maintain various Commission registration records, and has certified NFA as the official custodian of such records for the Commission.
In maintaining the Commission's registration records pursuant to this Order, NFA shall remain subject to all other requirements and obligations imposed upon it by the Commission in existing or future Orders or regulations. In this regard, NFA shall also implement such additional procedures and shall modify existing procedures as are necessary to ensure the security and integrity of these records as may be acceptable to the Commission; to facilitate prompt access to these records by the Commission and its staff; to facilitate disclosure of public or nonpublic information in these records when permitted by Commission Orders or regulations; to keep logs as required by the Commission concerning disclosures of nonpublic information; and otherwise to safeguard the confidentiality of the records.
The Commission has determined, pursuant to the provisions of CEA Sections 8a(10) and 17(
(1) To process and grant applications for registration and withdrawals from registration of swap dealers (SDs) and major swap participants (MSPs), and to notify of provisional registration;
(2) In connection with processing and granting applications for registration of SDs and MSPs, to confirm initial compliance with such regulations as the Commission may adopt to implement CEA Sections 4s(e) through 4s(k) and, where applicable, CEA Section 4s(
(3) To conduct proceedings to deny, condition, suspend, restrict or revoke the registration of any SD or MSP or of any applicant for registration in either category; and
(4) To maintain records regarding SDs and MSPs, and to serve as the official custodian of those Commission records.
NFA shall perform these functions in accordance with the standards established by the CEA and the Commission's regulations issued thereunder. NFA shall follow the same procedures with respect to recordkeeping, disclosure and tracking of fitness investigations and adverse action proceedings concerning SDs and MSPs as it must follow in cases involving other registrants.
These determinations are based upon the Congressional intent expressed in CEA Sections 4s(a), 4s(b), 8a(10), and 17(
Nothing in this Order, or in CEA Section 8a(10) or 17(
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Sommers, Chilton, O'Malia and Wetjen voted in the affirmative; no Commissioner voted in the negative.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012, 10 a.m.-11.a.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Department of Defense.
Federal advisory committee meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. § 552b, as amended) the Department of Defense announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”).
Tuesday, January 31, 2012, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and Wednesday, February 1, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Conference Room B-1, The Pentagon Conference Center (January 31) and Conference Room 3A912A, The Pentagon (February 1).
Mr. William Hostyn, GS-15, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency/SP-ACP, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email:
Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the Committee may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all committee members.
Due to changing requirements beyond the control of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee or its Designated Federal Officer, the Committee was unable to process the amended
U.S. Strategic Command, DoD.
Notice to add a system of records; correction.
On January 13, 2012 (77 FR 2052-2053), DoD published a notice announcing its intent to add a new Privacy Act System of Records. The Categories of Records in the System paragraph was written incorrectly. This notice corrects that error.
USSTRATCOM/J060, 901 SAC Blvd., Ste 2A9, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6000 or call by phone at (402) 294-4461.
On January 13, 2012, DoD published a notice announcing its intent to add a new system in its inventory of Privacy Act System of Records: FSTRATCOM 01, Command Data Records. Subsequent to the publication of that notice, DoD discovered that the Categories of Records in the System paragraph on pages 2052-2053 was written incorrectly.
In the notice (FR Doc. 2012-573) published on January 13, 2012 (77 FR 2052-2053), make the following
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The 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 February 21, 2012.
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 emailed 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
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339.
Office for Civil Rights, Education.
Notice of open meeting (Amended).
On January 5, 2012, the Office for Civil Rights published in the
This notice sets forth the revised schedule and proposed agenda of this meeting. The original January 5th notice describes the functions of the Commission. Notice of this meeting is required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of their opportunity to attend. This notice is appearing in the
January 23, 2012.
The Commission will meet in Washington, DC at the United States Department of Education at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, in Barnard Auditorium.
Jim Eichner, Designated Federal Official, Equity and Excellence Commission, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202. Email:
On January 23, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, the Equity and Excellence Commission will hold a meeting in Washington, DC in the Barnard Auditorium at the U.S. Department of Education's main building at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202.
The purpose of the Commission is to collect information, analyze issues, and
The agenda for the Commission's January 23, 2012 meeting will include an Ethics briefing, discussion of particular language for drafting certain portions of the Commission's annual report, and reaching consensus on particular recommendations. The Commission may have breakout sessions, most likely during the second half of the meeting, to discuss particular issues. The Commission plans to discuss the establishment of two or more subcommittees to discuss recommendations the Commission may make regarding teachers and school leaders; what documents and information should be included in the materials that will supplement the main Commission report; and/or other subjects within the Commission's charter. If time permits, these subcommittees may meet in the afternoon to outline their specific tasks and timing for subsequent meetings. Due to time constraints, there will not be a public comment period, but, individuals wishing to provide comments may contact the Equity Commission via email at
Individuals interested in attending the meeting must register in advance because seating may be limited. Please contact Jim Eichner at (202) 453-5945 or by email at
Records are kept of all Commission proceedings and are available for public inspection at the Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202 from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 19, 2012. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in
Written comments may be sent to Andre de Fontaine, EE-2F/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 20585 or by fax at (202) 586-5234 or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Andre de Fontaine, EE-2F/Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 20585 or by fax at (202) 586-5234 or by email at
This information collection request contains: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 106 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 15811.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection package with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 19, 2012. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to Melissa Scholz and Kasia Mendelsohn, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security (NA-24), National Nuclear Security Administration, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at (202) 586-1348 or by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to the person in
This package contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The Department of Energy (DOE) is the Lead Agency for implementing the Additional Protocol at locations owned, operated, or leased by or for DOE, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed or certified activities on DOE installations, and, in coordination with the Department of Defense, non-military locations on installations that store or process naval reactor fuel (collectively known as “DOE Locations”). Only those persons performing activities at DOE Locations that would be declarable to the IAEA under the U.S. AP are affected by this collection of information by DOE.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Section 211 of the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, Public Law 109-401 (Dec. 18, 2006), codified at 22 U.S.C. 8111.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, February 9, 2012; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
Friday, February 10, 2012; 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99356.
Paula Call, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-2048; or Email:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Notice of open meeting, Webinar.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC). The HTAC was established under section 807 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 849. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish notice of an advisory committee meeting in the
Thursday, February 9, 2012, 10 a.m.-1 p.m.
The meeting will be convened on-line via Webinar conference. Preregistration is required. The public may register through email at
• Public Comment (10 minutes)
• Discussion of HTAC's draft annual report
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 8, 2012; 6 p.m.
DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike,Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Renewal.
Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and (Pub. L. 92-463),
Additionally, the renewal of the Council has been determined to be essential to the conduct of the Department's business and to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law and agreement. The Council will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the rules and regulations in implementation of that Act.
Ms. Nancy Johnson at (202) 586-6458.
Take notice that on December 29, 2011, D'Lo Gas Storage, LLC (D'Lo), 1002 East St. Mary Blvd., Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, filed in Docket No. CP12-39-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing D'Lo to construct, operate, and maintain a new natural gas storage project to be located in Simpson County, Mississippi. Additionally, D'Lo requests a blanket certificate under part 284, Subpart G, of the Commission's regulations, to provide open-access non-discriminatory firm interruptible natural gas storage services and hub services, and a blanket certificate authorizing D'Lo to engage in certain self-implementing routine activities under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's regulations. D'Lo also requests through this application approval of its pro forma FERC Gas Tariff and authority to charge market-based rates for storage and hub services, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Specifically, D'Lo proposes to construct a natural gas storage facility in the D'Lo Salt Dome underground that will provide approximately 24 billion cubic feet of working gas capacity in three caverns. D'Lo will construct five sites for pipeline interconnections and metering with interstate and intrastate gas pipeline systems.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J. Gordon Pennington, 2707 N. Kensington St., Arlington, VA 22207, telephone no. (703) 533-7638, facsimile no. (703) 241-1842, and email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
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, on or before the comment date stated below, 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 7 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.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 4, 2012, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar), 180 East 100 South, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360, filed an application in Docket No. CP12-40-000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct and modify natural gas facilities located on Questar's southern transmission system in Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to L. Bradley Burton, General Manager, Federal Regulatory Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer, Questar Pipeline Company, 180 East 100 South, P.O. Box 45360, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0360, or by calling (801) 324-2459 (telephone)
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
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, on or before the comment date stated below, 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.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 High Liner Foods Incorporated'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 February 1, 2012.
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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Palmco Power MA, 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 February 1, 2012.
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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Cherokee County Cogeneration Partners, 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 February 1, 2012.
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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CPV Cimarron Renewable Energy Company, 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 February 1, 2012.
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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On November 30, 2011, Pelican Utility District (transferor) and the City of Pelican (transferee) filed an application to transfer the license for the Pelican Hydroelectric Water Project No. 10198, located on Pelican Creek in the borough of Sitka, Alaska.
Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Pelican Hydroelectric Water Project from the transferor to the transferee.
Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under
Take notice that the following 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 should be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
k.
When a Petition for Declaratory Order is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity, or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design or operation.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide advice to the Administrator of EPA on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities. It is determined that the FRRCC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. Inquiries may be directed to Alicia Kaiser, U.S. EPA, (mail code 1101-A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-7273, or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463, EPA gives notice of a public meeting of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, technology,
NACEPT will hold a two-day public meeting on Monday, February 13, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EST) and Tuesday, February 14, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will be held at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal Officer,
Requests to make oral comments or to provide written comments to NACEPT should be sent to Eugene Green at
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.
In accordance with 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) of a proposed ability to pay administrative settlement agreement pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h). This settlement agreement is with Colville Post & Poles, Inc. and Eugene Spring (“Settling Parties”) to recover response costs that EPA incurred conducting a response action at the Colville Post & Poles, Inc. Site, near Colville, Washington. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Settling Parties agree to pay EPA $5,000 and all proceeds from the sale of the property at the Site, and to impose restrictions on the use of the property by executing and recording an environmental covenant. In exchange for this consideration, the proposed Agreement contains the United States covenant not to sue, subject to certain reservations set forth in the Agreement, provides protection from third-party law suits for contribution, and will, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, release the Federal lien currently on the property.
Comments must be submitted by February 20, 2012. EPA and the Department of Justice will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw the Agreement if comments received or any other information indicates that such action is appropriate.
The proposed agreement is available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office, located at 1200 Sixth Avenue, in Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the proposed Agreement may be obtained from Carol Kennedy, Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Code ORC-158, Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 553-0242. Comments should refer to the Colville Post & Poles Superfund Site, Stevens County, Washington, and should be addressed to Jennifer G. MacDonald, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; fax: (206) 553-1762; email:
Jennifer G. MacDonald, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101; phone: (206) 553-8311.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and Request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502-3520), the Federal Communications Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s). Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before February 21, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should
Submit your PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), via fax at (202) 395-5167 or via Internet at
Judith B. Herman, Office of Managing Director, FCC, at (202) 418-0214.
There is no change in the Commission's previous burden estimates.
The reporting, recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements implement sections 201 and 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to provide for physical collocation on rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, and to promote deployment of advanced telecommunications services without significantly degrading the performance of other services. All of the requirements will be used by the Commission and competitive local exchange carriers (LECs) to facilitate the deployment of telecommunications services, including advanced telecommunications services.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC, Commission, or Agency).
Notice; one new Privacy Act system of records.
Pursuant to subsection (e)(4) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (“Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. 552a, the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) proposes to add a new system of records, FCC/CGB-3, “National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP).” Following enactment of the
In accordance with subsections (e)(4) and (e)(11) of the Privacy Act, any interested person may submit written comments concerning this proposed new system of records on or before February 21, 2012. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy Act to review the system of records and Congress may submit comments on or before February 28, 2012. The proposed new system of records will become effective on February 28, 2012 unless the FCC receives comments that require a contrary determination. The Commission will publish a document in the
Address comments to Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Analyst, Performance Evaluation and Records Management (PERM), Room 1-C216, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet at
Leslie F. Smith, Performance Evaluation and Records Management (PERM), Room 1-C216, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
As required by the
This notice meets the requirement documenting the change to the systems of records that the FCC maintains, and provides the public, OMB, and Congress with an opportunity to comment.
National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP).
The FCC's Security Operations Center (SOC) has not assigned a security classification to this system of records.
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 and 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325.
The categories of individuals in this system include:
1. Individuals who request or receive the NDBEDP equipment;
2. Individuals who attest to the disability of the individual receiving the NDBEDP equipment and/or matters related to the eligibility requirements, qualifications, and regulations, etc., for those seeking to participate in NDBEDP; and
3. Individuals who may file complaints, including but not limited to both formal and informal complaints, and inquiries on behalf of themselves or NDBEDP participants and matters related to NDBEDP rules and regulations.
The categories of records in this system include:
1. The name and contact information, including street address and email addresses, and phone number for the individuals requesting or receiving the NDBEDP equipment;
2. The name and contact information, including street and email addresses, phone number(s), and fax number(s) for the individuals attesting to the disability of the individual who is deaf-blind;
3. Other miscellaneous PII related to the individuals who participate in this program,
4. The name and contact information, including street and email addresses, phone number(s), and fax number(s) for individuals who make or have made formal and informal complaints and inquiries (including related supporting information) in any format (including but not limited to paper, telephone, TTY, recording, Braille, and electronic submissions, such as email, Internet, and fax,
5. Commission correspondence,
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); Sections 403(b)(2)(B), (c) Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, 254(k), and 620.
The Commission's CGB will use the information,
Information about individuals in this system of records may routinely be disclosed under the following conditions:
1. Informal Complaints—When a record in this system involves a formal or informal complaint, and/or inquiry filed against an NDBEDP certified program and related entities, the complaint or inquiry may be forwarded to the subject certified program for that state, the appropriate State and Federal medical boards, certifying associations, and related groups, and personal physicians (who may determine whether an individual meets the eligibility criteria for participation in the NDBEDP) for a response, as required under FCC rules;
2. Medical Records—A medical attestation or record (including but not limited to third party attestations, certifications, and declarations of disability) from this system may be disclosed to appropriate entities, including but not limited to the subject certified program for that state, the appropriate State and Federal medical boards, certifying associations, and related groups, and personal physicians for the purposes of determining whether an individual meets the eligibility criteria of being deaf-blind required to participate in the NDBEDP program;
3. Income Eligibility Records—A record from this system may be disclosed to appropriate entities, including but not limited to the subject certified program for that state, the appropriate State and Federal certifying boards and authorities for the purposes of determining whether an individual meets the income eligibility criteria required to participate in the NDBEDP program;
4. Law Enforcement and Investigation—Where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of a statute, regulation, rule, or order, records from this system may be shared with appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities either for purposes of obtaining additional information relevant to a FCC decision or for referring the record for investigation, enforcement, or prosecution by another agency;
5. Adjudication and Litigation—Where by careful review, the Agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to litigation and the use of such records is deemed by the Agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the records, these records may be used by a court or adjudicative body in a proceeding when: (a) The Agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the Agency has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation;
6. Department of Justice—A record from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or in a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body when:
(a) The United States, the Commission, a component of the Commission, or, when represented by the government, an employee of the Commission is a party to litigation or anticipated litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and
(b) The Commission determines that the disclosure is relevant or necessary to the litigation;
7. Congressional Inquiries—When requested by a Congressional office in response to an inquiry by an individual
8. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—When requested by the General Services Administration (GSA), the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and/or the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906 (such disclosure(s) shall not be used to make a determination about individuals); when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is contacted in order to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act; or when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is contacted in order to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act;
9. Breach of Federal Data—A record from this system may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Commission suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; and
10. FCC Enforcement Actions—When a record in this system involves a formal and/or informal complaint or inquiry filed alleging a violation of FCC Rules and Regulations by an applicant, licensee, certified or regulated entity or an unlicensed person or entity, the complaint may be provided to the alleged violator for a response. When an order or other Commission-issued document that includes consideration of a formal or informal complaint or complaints or inquiries is issued by the FCC to implement or to enforce FCC Rules and Regulations, the complainant's name or other PII may be made public in that order or document. Where a complainant in filing his or her complaint explicitly requests confidentiality of his or her name or other PII from public disclosure, the Commission will endeavor to protect such information from public disclosure. Complaints that contain requests for confidentiality may be dismissed if the Commission determines that the request impedes the Commission's ability to investigate and/or resolve the complaint.
In each of these cases, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the records is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
None.
The information in the NDBEDP system includes electronic data, records, and files that are stored in the FCC's computer network databases, and paper documents, records, and files that are stored in file cabinets in the CGB office suite.
Information in the electronic NDBEDP databases can be retrieved by categories of information, including but not limited to the individual's contact information, including the individual's name(s), street address, email address(es), and landline phone and cell phone number(s), complainant(s), and description fields.
The paper documents in the NDBEDP files are assigned a file identification name and/or number for future reference.
Access to the information,
The paper documents are maintained in file cabinets that are located in the CGB office suite, whose access is through a card-coded main door. Access to these files is restricted to authorized CGB supervisors and staff.
The FCC will retain these records until a records schedule has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Address inquiries to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Address inquiries to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Address inquiries to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Address inquiries to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
The sources for the information in this system include the individuals who request or receive the NDBEDP equipment; individuals, groups, and other entities who attest to the disability of the individual requesting or receiving the equipment; and other individuals, groups, and other entities who have a connection to the NDBEDP and its participants,
None.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:19 a.m. on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion ofDirector Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Ms. Julie L. Williams, acting in the place and stead of Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
9 a.m. (Eastern Time), January 23, 2012.
4th Floor Conference Room,1250 H Street NW.,Washington, DC 20005.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director,Office of External Affairs,(202) 942-1640.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Lisa Weintraub Schifferle (202) 326-3377) or Meredyth Smith Andrus (202) 326-2863), Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 12, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 6, 2012. Write “CVS Caremark, File No. 112 3210” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “CVS Caremark, File No. 112 3210” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, a consent agreement from CVS Caremark Corporation (“CVSC”).
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
CVSC is a pharmacy services company that, among other things, markets and sells Medicare drug plans and Medicare Part D drugs. CVSC currently owns multiple subsidiaries, including RxAmerica, that offer Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. Medicare Part D is a prescription drug benefit for consumers with Medicare coverage, primarily seniors and persons with disabilities. To obtain Part D benefits, beneficiaries must enroll in a Medicare drug plan administered by an insurer or other private company approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). Beneficiaries can shop for a Medicare drug plan by looking up plan benefits and drug costs on a provider's Web site, by going onto CMS' Medicare Web site and using the web-based tool known as Plan Finder, or by visiting other third-party Web sites where such information is posted. Once enrolled, beneficiaries generally have cost sharing obligations until the total cost of their drugs reaches what is known as the coverage gap or “donut hole,” at which point the beneficiary pays the full cost of the drugs.
The Commission's complaint alleges that CVSC, through its subsidiary RxAmerica, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by misrepresenting that the prices of covered Medicare Part D prescription drugs, as posted on Plan Finder and on the Web sites of RxAmerica and other third parties from approximately 2007 until the end of 2008, were accurate estimates of the prices that beneficiaries would pay for those drugs at CVS and Walgreens. Rather, the prices charged to RxAmerica beneficiaries who purchased their covered Part D generic drugs from CVS Pharmacy or Walgreens during the relevant time period were significantly higher—in some cases as much as ten times higher—than the prices posted on those Web sites. As a result of this
To remedy the violations charged and to prevent CVSC from engaging in the future in practices similar to those alleged in the complaint, the proposed order contains injunctive provisions and a consumer redress program.
Section I of the proposed order prohibits CVSC from misrepresenting the price or cost of Medicare Part D prescription drugs, or other prices or costs associated with Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.
Section II of the proposed order requires CVSC, within five (5) days of the date the order becomes final, to pay the Commission $5 million for consumer redress and administrative costs. This provision specifies that the Commission may apply any remaining funds after redress is completed for such other equitable relief as it determines to be reasonably related to CVSC's practices alleged in the complaint. Any remaining funds not used for such equitable relief shall be deposited into the United States Treasury as disgorgement. Section III of the proposed consent order requires CVSC to produce certain information necessary for the Commission to administer consumer redress.
Sections IV through VIII of the proposed order are reporting and compliance provisions. Section IV requires CVSC to retain documents relating to its compliance with the order for a five (5) year period. Section V requires dissemination of the order now and in the future to all current and future subsidiaries, current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers, and to persons with responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. It also requires CVSC to secure a signed and dated statement acknowledging receipt of the order from all persons who receive a copy of the order pursuant to Section V. Section VI ensures notification to the Commission of changes in corporate status. Section VII mandates that CVSC submit a compliance report to the Commission within sixty (60) days, and periodically thereafter as requested. Section VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or the proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement and the reinstatement of GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims, regarding final payment under construction and building services contract. GSA Form 1142 was inadvertently deleted as part of the rewrite of GSAR regulations on Contract Financing. GSA Contracting Officers have used this form to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: March 19, 2012.
Ms. Dana Munson, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 357-9652 or email
Submit comments identified by
•
•
•
The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.232-72 requires construction and building services contractors to submit a release of claims before final payment is made to ensure contractors are paid in accordance with their contract requirements and for work performed. GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims is used to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Mary Jo Deering at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Mary Jo Deering at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Division of the National Toxicology Program (DNTP), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Request for Public Comment and Call for Nominations.
The NTP requests comments on several substances, mixtures, and exposure circumstances (collectively referred to as “substances”) nominated for possible review for future editions of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). The NTP also invites the nomination of additional substances.
The deadline for submission of public comments on the nominated substances is February 28, 2012; comments submitted after this date will be considered as time permits. There is no deadline for submission of new nominations.
Comments should be sent to Dr. Ruth Lunn, Director, Office of the RoC, DNTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD K2-14, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone (919) 316-4637; Fax: (919) 541-0144;
Dr. Ruth Lunn (telephone: (919) 316-4637 or email
The RoC is a congressionally mandated document that identifies and discusses substances that may pose a hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. Substances are listed in the report as either known or reasonably anticipated human carcinogens. The NTP prepares the RoC on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services following a formal, multi-step process for review and evaluation of selected substances. The evaluation process was recently revised and the final process is available on the RoC Web site (
The NTP requests public comment on the substances listed below that have been nominated for possible review for future editions of the RoC (for more information, see
Persons submitting public comments are asked to include their name, contact information, affiliation, and sponsoring organization (if any) and to send them to Dr. Lunn (see
• alkenylbenzenes (selected dietary: estragole, myristicin, isosafrole)
• 1-bromopropane
• carbon black
• cumene
• diesel exhaust particulates
• ethylbenzene
•
• indium compounds
• iron (excess) or iron overload
• pentachlorophenol
• shiftwork involving light at night
•
• trichloroethylene
• uranium (depleted)
• viruses (selected): Kaposi's sarcoma—associated herpesvirus, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and Merkel cell polyomavirus
* Nominations to the RoC may seek to list a new substance in the report, reclassify the listing status of a substance already listed, or remove a listed substance.
The NTP solicits and encourages the broadest participation possible from interested individuals or parties in nominating substances for the RoC. A nomination may seek to list a new substance in the report, reclassify the listing status of a substance already listed, or remove a listed substance. Nominations should contain (1) a rationale or reason for the RoC review and, if possible, appropriate background information and relevant data to support the rationale (e.g., journal articles, NTP Technical Reports, International Agency for Research on Cancer listings, exposure surveys, or release inventories) and (2) the nominator's name, affiliation, contact information, and
Part A, Office of the Secretary, Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Chapter ABE, Office of Security and Strategic Information, which was last amended at 72 FR 19000-01, dated April 16, 2007, and at Chapter AJ, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA), which was last amended at 74 FR 57679-57682, dated November 9, 2009, and most recently at 75 FR 369-370, dated January 5, 2010, as follows:
A. Under Part A, delete Chapter ABE, Office of Security and Strategic Information, in its entirety.
B. Under Part A, Chapter AJ, “Section AJ.00 Mission,” delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
Section AJ.00 Mission. The Office of Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) performs for the Secretary the administrative functions of the Department. Manages policies and programs for human resources, equal employment opportunity, information resources management, security, counterintelligence, strategic information, logistics, and travel, as well as the general administrative activities of the Department and other administrative duties as assigned from time to time. Provides leadership and oversight direction to the activities of the Program Support Center.
C. Under Part A, Chapter AJ, “Section AJ.10 Organization,” delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
Section AJ.10 Organization. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) is under the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, who reports to the Secretary, and consists of the following components:
D. Under Part A, Chapter AJ, “Section AJ.20 Functions,” delete the first paragraph, “Office of Human Resources (AJA),” in its entirety and replace with the following:
Office of Human Resources (AJA). The Office of Human Resources (OHR) provides leadership in the planning and development of personnel policies and human resource programs that support and enhance the Department's mission. OHR also provides technical assistance to the Operating Divisions (OPDIVs) to most effectively and efficiently accomplish the OPDIV's mission through improved planning and recruitment of human resources and serves as the Departmental liaison to central management agencies on related matters. OHR also provides leadership in creating and sustaining a diverse workforce and an environment free of discrimination at HHS through efforts that include policy development, oversight, resource management, commemorative events, and standardized education and training programs.
E. Under Part A, Chapter AJ, “Section AJ.20 Functions,” delete the fourth paragraph, “Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity (AJI),” in its entirety.
F. Under Part A, Chapter AJ, “Section AJ.20 Functions,” insert the following new paragraph at the end of the section:
Office of Security and Strategic Information (AJS). The Office of Security and Strategic Information is headed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security who serves as the Secretary's Senior Intelligence Official and reports directly to the Deputy Secretary on intelligence and counterintelligence issues and to the Assistant Secretary for Administration on all other issues. The Office of Security and Strategic Information provides Department-wide leadership, direction, policy guidance, execution support, and oversight for the following areas: Personnel security and suitability; physical security; critical infrastructure protection; secure systems access and classified information security management, including original classification authority and declassification authority; strategic information; and counterintelligence. The Office also provides leadership and execution of security functions for the Office of the Secretary.
F. Delegation of Authority. Pending further redelegation, directives or orders made by the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or ASA, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Barriers to Occupational Injury Reporting by Workers: A NEISS-Work Telephone Interview Survey—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Each year about 5,400 workers die from a work-related injury and 4 million private industry workers report a nonfatal injury or illness. There are 3.4 million workers treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments annually for nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses [1]. Although studies indicate that we have reduced the number of nonfatal injuries in recent decades, there is evidence that nonfatal occupational injury surveillance significantly underreports workplace injuries. This presumed undercount potentially decreases health and safety funding because of a false sense of improvement and increases the misdirection of scarce safety and health resources. It is this basic need for reliable and comprehensive occupational injury surveillance that led to the 1987 National Academy of
The proposed pilot research addresses two facets of nonfatal occupational injury reporting noted in these reports—understanding barriers and incentives to reporting occupational injuries and using this knowledge to assess and improve our surveillance activities. The objectives of this project are to (1) Characterize and quantify the relative importance of incentives and disincentives to self-identifying work-relatedness at the time of medical treatment and to employers; (2) characterize individual and employment characteristics that are associated with non-reporting of workplace injuries and incentives and disincentives to reporting; (3) test the reliability of hospital abstractors to properly distinguish between work-related and non-work-related injuries; and (4) evaluate the feasibility, need, and requirements for a future larger study.
This project will use the occupational and the all injuries supplements to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS-Work and NEISS-AIP, respectively) to identify telephone interview survey participants. NEISS-Work and NEISS-AIP, collected by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), capture people who were treated in the emergency department (ED) for a work-related illness or injury (NEISS-Work) or any injury, regardless of work-relatedness (NEISS-AIP). Interview respondents will come from two subgroups—individuals treated for a work-related injury and individuals who were treated for a non-work-related injury but who were employed during the time period that the injury occurred.
Data collection for the telephone interview survey will be done via a questionnaire. This questionnaire contains questions about the respondent's injury that sent them to the ED, the characteristics of the job they were working when they were injured, their experiences reporting their injury to the ED and their employer (if applicable), and their beliefs about the process and subsequent consequences of reporting an injury. The questionnaire was designed to take 30 minutes to complete. Individuals who were not employed at the time the injury occurred or was made worse; who are younger than age 20 or older than age 64; who do not speak English; who were employed on a farm or ranch or were self-employed, an independent contractor, or a day laborer at the time of injury; who did not experience an acute injury; or who missed more than three days from work because of the injury will be screened out at the beginning of the interview.
Approximately 1200 interviews will be completed over the two year period of the study. The only cost to the respondent will be the cost of their time spent on the phone completing the telephone interview survey. The estimated annualized burden hours are 300.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Pre-Evaluation Assessments of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Programs and Policies—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The causes of obesity in the United States are complex and numerous, and they occur at many levels. In 2009, CDC issued guidance outlining 24 community-based strategies to encourage healthy eating and active living. Some of these strategies are being implemented by CDC awardees and other organizations. CDC plans to collect preliminary information about the effectiveness, in practice, of a selected group of the 24 recommended strategies. A systematic screening and assessment process will be used to identify programs for further evaluation.
CDC will select programs for initial assessment by reviewing completed program nomination forms. Forms can be submitted by states and jurisdictions funded through CDC's Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (NPAO) cooperative agreement program, states and jurisdictions that do not currently have NPAO funding, and other organizations. Nominations may be submitted on-line or in hardcopy format. The nomination form includes a general program description, and an overview of organizational capacity. It will also include a summary of the program's potential impact, reach to target population, feasibility, transportability, acceptability to stakeholders, and sustainability. CDC anticipates reviewing an average of 51 program nomination forms per year.
CDC will also collect information through semi-structured, in-person interviews with approximately 12 key informants at each site selected for assessment. Respondents at each site will include the lead administrator, three program staff, an evaluator, and seven public and private sector partners and other stakeholders. Public and private sector partners and other stakeholders will be drawn from the state, local, and tribal government sector
Results will be used to identify local achievements and promising practices in nutrition, physical activity, and obesity prevention; to provide feedback and technical assistance to each initiative's developers, implementers and managers; and to assess the evaluation readiness of promising initiatives.
Up to 23 program initiatives will be selected for pre-assessment evaluation over a two-year period. OMB approval is requested for two years. Site visits will be conducted with an average of 12 programs per year. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 291.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for information.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is seeking on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services information for an anticipated Surgeon General response to the public health problem of youth violence.
Individuals and organizations interested in providing information must submit their comments on/or before February 21, 2012. Comments received after this date will not be considered.
Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
•
•
All relevant comments will be posted without change to
Lesley M. Russell BSc (Hons), BA, Ph.D., Senior Public Health Advisor for Outreach and Policy, Office of the US Surgeon General, by telephone at (202) 401-9586, or email at
(1) What is the extent of the problem and its consequences.
(2) What are the differences in youth violence prevalence among subgroups and communities and how might they inform prevention approaches.
(3) What is the availability and adaptability of evidence-based prevention programs.
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of Tribal Consultation.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will host a Tribal Consultation to consult on ACF programs and tribal priorities.
March 5-6, 2012.
Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Lillian A. Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans at (202) 401-5590, by email at
On November 5, 2009, President Obama signed the “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Tribal Consultation.” The President stated that his Administration is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in policy decisions that have tribal implications, including, as an initial step, through complete and consistent implementation of Executive Order 13175.
The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments, established through and confirmed by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and judicial decisions. In recognition of that special relationship, pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, executive departments and agencies are charged with engaging in regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, and are responsible for strengthening the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes.
HHS has taken its responsibility to comply with Executive Order 13175 very seriously over the past decade, including the initial implementation of a Department-wide policy on tribal consultation and coordination in 1997, and through multiple evaluations and revisions of that policy, most recently in 2008. Many HHS agencies have already developed their own agency-specific consultation policies that complement the Department-wide efforts.
In August 2011, ACF issued its Consultation Policy in partnership with tribes. This policy will help our program offices and program office regional presence to better engage Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the development or revision of policies, regulations, and proposed legislation that impact American Indians. ACF firmly believes that in order to create a good working relationship with tribes, it starts with requesting and receiving input from the tribes to ensure that we are meeting their needs and to establish a partnership that can carry us into the future.
Testimonies may be submitted no later than February 24, 2012, to: Lillian Sparks, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447.
However, this deadline does not preclude anyone from providing testimony at the session and we will, to the extent that time allows, hear your testimony. If you plan on attending to present your testimony, please provide the name, title, and tribe of the individual who will be presenting to Kimberly Romine. Ms. Romine may be reached at
In addition to the Tribal Consultation session, ACF will be hosting a half day Tribal Training and Technical Assistance session to provide information about ACF programs, and ACF's Integration and Interoperability Initiative. The Tribal Training and Technical Assistance session will be held the morning of March 5, 2012, in the same room as the Tribal Consultation session.
Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email
The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Section 372 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act requires that the Secretary, by contract, provide for the establishment and operation of an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The OPTN, among other responsibilities, operates and maintains a national waiting list of
The OPTN is recommending addition of a new Liver Explant Pathology form to the OPTN data system. This new form was developed by the OPTN Liver and Intestinal Organ Transplantation Committee and will be used to collect pathology data on liver transplant recipients who received waitlist exception points as a result of a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Existing OPTN policy requires submission of post-transplant pathology reports by fax transmission, and the proposed form will provide standardized collection of this already-required information.
There are also minor revisions to the existing data collection forms; the added fields were inadvertently left off of the forms at the time of the initial submission. Several of these fields are “read only” and are included on the forms for information purposes only. One field is proposed to be removed as it represented duplicative information.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Noncompetitive Replacement Award to Tennessee Primary Care Association, Brentwood, Tennessee.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will be transferring the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (section 330 of the Public Health Service Act) Health Information Technology Implementation for Health Center Controlled Networks (HCCN) funds originally awarded to Community Health Network, Inc. (CHN), to the Tennessee Primary Care Association (TPCA) to ensure the implementation of a Health Center Controlled Network in the State of Tennessee.
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 245b.
The former grantee (CHN) relinquished the grant and its responsibilities due to financial difficulties as well as management and legal concerns. TPCA has been a HRSA funded Primary Care Association since 1985 and is a well established organization with sound fiscal and grants management operations.
In the effort to preserve the opportunity to advance information technology resources of the Tennessee's medically underserved communities, TPCA has demonstrated the capacity to fulfill the expectations of the original grant award and has collaborated with CHN's Board of Directors to plan for a smooth transition of the grant.
The transfer of these funds will ensure full implementation of the grant which will greatly advance the State of Tennessee's continuity of care and have a positive impact on population health. It will also help the participating health centers to meet requirements for Meaningful Use and Patient Centered Medical Home programs by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) and/or the Joint Commission.
The implementation of a Health Center Controlled Network would assist with the advancement and effective use of Health Information Technology. These advancements will result in measurable improvements in patient outcomes and reductions of health disparities for underserved communities in the State of Tennessee. As a result, in order to ensure a timely implementation of a Health Center Controlled Network in the State of Tennessee as originally awarded, this replacement award will not be competed.
Ms. Mayra Nicolas via phone at (301) 594-4294 or via email at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.
Gladys Cate, Office of Special Population Health, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15-62, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 594-0367.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Patricia Weber, DrPH, Program Director, NCI/NIH, SBIR Development Center, 6116 Executive Blvd., Suite 402, Rockville, MD 20852 or call non-toll-free number (301) 594-8106 or email your request, including your address to:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meetings 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 meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.