Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
United States Mint
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 rule; correction.
This document corrects language in the final rule published in the
Effective March 9, 2012.
Jeffrey L. Steiner, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”), at (202) 418-5482 or
In the final rule, FR Doc. 2011-33173, on page 1228 in the issue of Monday, January 9, 2012, the following correction is made:
On page 1228 in the middle column, beginning on the twelfth line from the top, the text “(1) July 16, 2012 of this Adopting Release in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Correcting amendment.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published in the
This correction is effective January 20, 2012.
William F. Russo, Deputy Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or call (202) 461-4902 (not a toll-free number).
On September 23, 2008, VA published in the
As a result of the errors in the applicability date and in amended § 4.118, the rule document and the regulation are unclear about whether veterans whose claims were filed before October 23, 2008, but were not rated before that date may request review under the new criteria. A strict, literal reading of the applicability-date language and § 4.118 might suggest that veterans with such unrated claims would be rated under the old criteria with no opportunity to request review under the new criteria. We intended such claims to be rated under the old criteria subject to the right of the claimant to request review under the revised criteria. Neither the applicability-date language nor § 4.118 addressed whether veterans with such claims may request review. We did not intend the strict reading because it would be irrational to deny the opportunity for review under the new criteria to persons whose pending claims had not yet been rated before October 23, 2008, while providing the opportunity to persons whose claims had been rated, even though all of the claims had been filed before that date.
This correction document revises the introductory sentence of § 4.118 to state, in pertinent part, “A veteran whose scars were rated by VA under a prior version of diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805, as in effect before October 23, 2008, may request review under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804, and 7805 * * *.” Note that the “rated by VA under a prior version” language would encompass claims that have received an initial rating but are still pending in the appeals process.
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
For the reason set out in the preamble, VA is correcting 38 CFR Part 4 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
A veteran whose scars were rated by VA under a prior version of diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805, as in effect before October 23, 2008, may request review under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804, and 7805, irrespective of whether his or her disability has worsened since the last review. * * *
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published in the
This correction is effective January 20, 2012. The applicability date of rule document E8-21980 on page 54708 in the issue of Tuesday, September 23, 2008, is corrected as of October 23, 2008.
William F. Russo, Deputy Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or call (202) 461-4902 (not a toll-free number).
On September 23, 2008, VA published in the
As a result of the errors in the applicability date and in amended § 4.118, the rule document and the regulation are unclear about whether veterans whose claims were filed before October 23, 2008, but were not rated before that date may request review under the new criteria. A strict, literal reading of the applicability-date language and § 4.118 might suggest that veterans with such unrated claims would be rated under the old criteria with no opportunity to request review under the new criteria. We intended such claims to be rated under the old criteria subject to the right of the claimant to request review under the revised criteria. Neither the applicability-date language nor § 4.118 addressed whether veterans with such claims may request review. We did not intend the strict reading because it would be irrational to deny the opportunity for review under the new criteria to persons whose pending claims had not yet been rated before October 23, 2008, while providing the opportunity to persons whose claims had been rated, even though all of the claims had been filed before that date.
This correction document adds a new second sentence to the applicability date paragraph, “The old criteria will apply to applications received by VA before that date.” To be consistent with the new second sentence, this correction document also revises the third sentence (the original second sentence) to state, ““However, a veteran whose scars were rated by VA under a prior version of diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805 of 38 CFR 4.118, as in effect prior to the effective date of this rule, may request review under these clarified criteria, irrespective of whether his or her disability has worsened since the last review.” Note that the “rated by VA under a prior version” language would encompass claims that have received an initial rating but are still pending in the appeals process.
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
For the reason set out in the preamble, in rule document E8-21980 on page 54708 in the issue of Tuesday, September 23, 2008, make the following corrections:
1. In the second column of page 54708, under the
2. In the second column of page 54708, under the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; technical correction.
EPA issued a final rule in the
This final rule is effective January 20, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0944. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in
Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8077; email address:
The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA is correcting the section designation for § 180.308, which was added to 40 CFR in the
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely making a technical change to the section number which is not a substantive change. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
All applicable statutory requirements were discussed in the final rule that was printed on January 6, 2012. The only other statutory requirement deemed necessary is discussed above.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces the deletion of the Martin-Marietta/Sodyeco Superfund Site (Site) located at 11701 Mount Holly Road in Charlotte, North Carolina, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of North Carolina, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-SFUND-2011-0749. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michael Townsend, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Remedial Section, Superfund Remedial Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, (404) 562-8813, Electronic mail at:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Martin-Marietta/Sodyeco Superfund Site (Site) located at 11701 Mount Holly Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was December 17, 2011. No public comments were received during the comment period. Therefore a responsiveness summary was not prepared and placed in the docket, EPA-R04-SFUND-2011-0749, on
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
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, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 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
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission adopted procedures designed to promote the initiation of commercial FM radio service by and to Native American tribes, by providing a procedure for such tribes to establish threshold qualifications when applying for commercial FM allotments added to the Table of Allotments using the Commission's Tribal Priority.
The rules and policies established in this order contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. The Commission will publish a document in the
Peter Doyle or Thomas Nessinger, Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Audio Division, 445 12th Street SW., Room 2-B450, Washington, DC 20445.
Peter Doyle, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2700 or
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Third Report and Order (Third R&O), FCC 11-190, adopted December 28, 2011, and released December 29, 2011. The full text of the Third R&O is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Room CY-A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, BCPI, Inc., Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. via their Web site,
This Third R&O adopts new or revised information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)). These information collection requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice in the
1. In the Third R&O, the Commission addressed the proposals set forth in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Second FNPRM) that accompanied the Second Report and Order in this proceeding (76 FR 9797, March 4, 2010, FCC 11-28, rel. Mar. 3, 2011) (Second R&O). The Tribal Priority gives qualified Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (Tribes) a priority under section 307(b) of the Communications Act when seeking to establish new radio stations that primarily cover tribal lands. Because applicants for new AM broadcast and FM noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations submit showings under section 307(b) at the time of filing an application for construction permit, the Tribal Priority gives Tribes an advantage over applicants filing mutually exclusive proposals. However, in the case of commercial FM broadcast stations, there is a two-step application process: first, the FM channel is allotted at a selected community, and the section 307(b) evaluation is made at this stage of the process. Second, the FM allotment is auctioned, with any party desiring to do so participating in the auction. An application for an FM commercial construction permit is only filed after the auction is held, and only by the winning bidder.
2. Recognizing “the risks inherent in applying a section 307(b) preference at the allotment stage for auctionable non-reserved band spectrum,” (First Report and Order, 75 FR 9797, Mar. 4, 2010, FCC 10-24, rel. Feb. 23, 2010), the Commission sought comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 75 FR 9856, March 4, 2010, FCC 10-24, rel. Feb. 23, 2010 (FNPRM) in this proceeding on whether to establish an auction bidding credit for Tribes seeking to provide commercial FM radio service to their Tribal Lands and members. The Tribal bidding credit was originally proposed to mitigate concerns that, due to the two-step nature of the commercial FM licensing process, Tribes or Tribal entities that employ the Tribal Priority to obtain FM allotments might be outbid by competing, non-Tribal applicants. The only commenters to address this issue proposed a 35 percent bidding credit that would be available to Tribes or Tribal entities that participated in the allotment proceeding for the FM channel being auctioned, regardless of new entrant status, along with an additional 25 percent new entrant bidding credit to Tribes with no interests in media of mass communications, for a total maximum bidding credit of 60 percent.
3. The Commission found the record inconclusive as to the effectiveness of tribal bidding credits. The Commission was unclear as to whether and how it could craft such credits so as to meaningfully advance its goals consistent with the competitive bidding mandate of 47 U.S.C. 309(j). On further consideration, the Commission believed an alternative approach might be more effective to achieve its policy goals and would be more consistent with its statutory mandate to license spectrum in the public interest. The Commission thus sought comment, in the Second FNPRM, on whether to require, as a threshold qualification to apply for a commercial FM channel allotted pursuant to the Tribal Priority, that
4. The Commission stated that the proposed threshold qualifications would be more effective than tribal bidding credits in advancing the Tribal Priority's goals. As set forth in the First R&O, the Priority is premised on the unique ability of Tribes and Tribal entities to serve their Tribal communities “[b]ecause of their status as sovereign nations responsible for, among other things, `maintaining and sustaining their sacred histories, languages, and traditions.' ” (First R&O, 25 FCC Rcd at 1587-88). As the Commission previously noted, the identity of the service provider to Tribal areas is critical to Tribal Priority-based allocations. Whereas in AM and NCE radio services the Tribal Priority generally operates as a dispositive preference in the application process, guaranteeing that a qualified applicant will obtain the license, commercial FM licensing is a two-step process in which a dispositive preference at the initial, allotment stage does not guarantee the grant of a license in the second, application step. An unavoidable consequence of the auctions process is that Tribes and Tribal entities uniquely qualified to serve their communities may be outbid in the commercial FM application process by non-Tribal applicants that file mutually exclusive applications. At best, Tribal bidding credits could only enhance the competitive position of Tribal applicants. They could not, however, completely eliminate the risk of qualified Tribal applicants being outbid, thereby frustrating the Commission's goals in allocating the channel pursuant to the Tribal Priority. In contrast, the proposed threshold qualification requirement would ensure that only a Tribe or Tribal entity qualified to provide the unique service contemplated by the allocation is eligible for the license to provide that service. Such an approach would set the commercial FM service on the same footing as other radio services with regard to the Tribal Priority, and avoid undermining the Commission's policy goals in establishing the Tribal Priority.
5. The Commission further stated that the proposed threshold qualifications would be consistent with its statutory mandate under 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E), which provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]othing in this subsection, or in the use of competitive bidding, shall * * * be construed to relieve the Commission of the obligation in the public interest to continue to use * * * threshold qualifications * * * in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.” The use of threshold qualifications would serve the public interest because the premise of the Tribal Priority is a Tribe's or Tribal entity's unique ability to serve the needs and interests of its local community. Unlike a prohibited “pioneer's preference,” which would favor the application of the party that petitioned to add an allotment using the Tribal Priority, the threshold qualification would be based on the Tribe's or Tribal entity's ability to fulfill the purpose for which the channel was allotted under the Tribal Priority, rather than on its participation in the allotment proceeding. Thus, eligible Tribes or Tribal entities may be eligible to apply for a channel allotted pursuant to the Tribal Priority even if they did not petition for the allotment. To the extent that mutually exclusive applications may still be filed under the proposed threshold qualifications approach, thus requiring competitive bidding, the bidders would initially be limited to qualified Tribes and Tribal entities, so the Commission's policy goals would not be frustrated. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission also asked whether to adopt an exception to the general prohibition of collusion set forth in 47 CFR 1.2105(c), applicable to mutually exclusive applications in the commercial FM broadcast service, so that Tribes or Tribal entities that file mutually exclusive applications for a channel allotted pursuant to the Tribal Priority could have an opportunity to resolve any mutual exclusivities through engineering solutions or settlement.
6. The Commission received two comments and one reply comment on these issues: NPM and NCAI again filed joint comments, and Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (GRTI) filed comments and reply comments. All commenters supported the threshold qualifications approach as proposed in the Second FNPRM, and supported the proposal to allow settlements among qualifying mutually exclusive Tribal applicants. All commenters also concurred an FM allotment added by a qualified Tribe or Tribal-owned entity using the Tribal Priority (Tribal Allotment) should be initially awarded only to a Tribe or Tribal entity, and should remain reserved for such an entity even if no Tribal applicants meeting such threshold qualifications express interest in a Tribal Allotment when initially offered. NPM/NCAI in particular believed that it would frustrate the purpose of the Tribal Priority to open, then abruptly close, a Tribal filing window, only to offer the Tribal Allotment to non-Tribal applicants, given that many financial, technical, and geographic obstacles exist to the rapid deployment of broadcast radio service to tribal lands. NPM/NCAI thus argued that any threshold qualifications plan should account for such obstacles, and should allow sufficient time for Tribes to finance and construct facilities. GRTI, while agreeing with NPM/NCAI on this point, added that some Tribes are prepared and eager to begin station construction quickly, but that such desires can be thwarted by what it perceives as Commission delays. GRTI thus suggested that the Commission implement an “expedited processing” system for Tribes meeting threshold qualifications and proposing new AM, full-power FM, and low-power FM facilities.
7. Based on the Commission's examination of the record in this proceeding, it adopted the proposed threshold qualifications approach to commercial FM application processing as set forth below, including measures to address situations in which Tribes and Tribal entities require additional time to apply for a license. While committed to assisting Tribes in establishing radio service meeting the needs of their communities and citizens, the Commission was also mindful of its fundamental interest in expediting new radio service to communities and preventing the so-called “warehousing” of scarce spectrum. The latter concern militates against procedures that would unreasonably delay authorizing new stations, or tie up spectrum for indefinite periods of time. To some extent, a Tribe may time the award of a new FM commercial facility by petitioning for a new Tribal Allotment only when it is ready to commence construction (although, in certain areas where spectrum is more scarce, Tribes could also reasonably conclude that the risks of deferring application filing are too great). Moreover, while there do exist financial obstacles to initiating new broadcast service, the procedures proposed in the Second FNPRM apply only to commercial FM facilities, which by their nature are intended to be financially self-sustaining. Finally, as GRTI pointed out in its comments, some Tribes are ready, willing, and able to commence construction immediately, and would be disserved by any process
8. Under the threshold qualifications procedure adopted herein, once a Tribal Allotment is allocated, as set forth in the First R&O, within a reasonable period of time after publication of the new allotment in the
(A) The applicant is either a federally recognized Tribe or Tribal consortium, or an entity 51 percent or more of which is owned or controlled by a Tribe or Tribes. Qualifying Tribes or Tribal entities must be those at least a portion of whose Tribal Lands lie within the principal community contour of the proposed facility. Although the 51 or greater percent Tribal control threshold need not consist of a single Tribe, the qualifying entity must be 51 percent or more owned or controlled by Tribes at least a portion of whose Tribal Lands lie within the proposed facility's principal community contour;
(B)(1) At least 50 percent of the area within the proposed principal community contour is over that Tribe's Tribal Lands, or (2) the proposed principal community contour (a) encompasses 50 percent or more of that Tribe's Tribal Lands, (b) serves at least 2,000 people living on Tribal Lands, and (c) the total population on Tribal Lands residing within the proposed station's service contour (the class reference contour as set forth in 47 CFR 73.211(b), which is the 1mV/m [60 dBμ] contour) constitutes at least 50 percent of the total covered population (and, in the case of either (B)(1) or (B)(2), the proposed station's principal community contour does not cover more than 50 percent of the Tribal Lands of a Tribe that is not a party to the application). To the extent that a Tribe lacks Tribal Lands, the applicant may demonstrate eligibility for waiver of the above-listed tribal land coverage provisions, by demonstrating a geographic area identified with the Tribe. See Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2561-63. Likewise, the Commission will consider requests for waiver of the other requirements where appropriate;
(C) The proposed community of license must be located on Tribal Lands; and
(D) The proposed service must constitute first or second aural (reception) service, or first local Tribal-owned commercial transmission service at the proposed community of license (see First R&O, 25 FCC Rcd 1583, 1596-97 (2010); Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2561-63, 2586-87).
9. If only one acceptable application is filed during the TQ Window, whether by the original Tribal Allotment proponent submitting notification to process its application immediately or by another qualified applicant, that application will be processed promptly, and the Tribal Allotment will not be auctioned. Absent an affirmative submission by the original Tribal Allotment proponent during the TQ Window notifying the Commission that it wishes its Form 301 application to be processed immediately, the allotment proponent's already-filed Form 301 application will not be considered an “acceptable application” at this stage of the threshold qualifications proceeding. In the event that two or more acceptable applications are filed during the TQ Window, the Commission will announce a limited period, after the close of the TQ Window but before the next FM auction, in which the parties may negotiate a settlement (including a time-sharing agreement) or bona fide merger, as a way of resolving the mutual exclusivity between their applications. Any such settlement or merger will be subject to the same limits and conditions as other agreements for resolving application conflicts (see 47 CFR 73.3525). Technical solutions will not be allowed as settlements. Unlike the case of competing new commercial AM applications (some groups of which are allowed to resolve their mutual exclusivity by means of engineering solutions), in which each mutually exclusive applicant has submitted a discrete engineering proposal in its application which may be amended, a Tribal Allotment will have been added to the Table of Allotments (47 CFR 73.202) only after it has undergone the allocations rulemaking process. That process involves not only a complete engineering review of the proposed allotment, but also consideration of comments and, often, competing allotment proposals. Allowing a post-allocation technical solution that would result in grant of more than one FM allotment would effectively circumvent the FM allocations rulemaking process, and the right of parties to file comments and counter-proposals that is inherent in that process. If there are other fully spaced channels that could accommodate another Tribal Allotment, one of the competing applicants could simply petition to add such an allotment through the normal allocations rulemaking process. If, however, there are no channels available, the Commission declined GRTI's suggestion that it relax its spacing or other rules designed to prevent interference among stations. A settlement that establishes technically deficient Tribal stations is not an effective means to establish viable and needed radio service to Tribal Lands.
10. If a settlement or merger is reached, the parties shall so notify the Commission as set forth in the Public Notice announcing the TQ Window. The Commission's staff will promptly begin processing the surviving application pursuant to the settlement or merger. If a settlement or merger cannot be reached among the mutually exclusive applicants, the Tribal Allotment will be auctioned during the next scheduled FM auction. However, at that time only the applicants whose applications were accepted for filing during the TQ Window, as well as the original Tribal Allotment proponent, will be permitted to bid on that particular Tribal Allotment,
11. In the NCE FM context, the Commission's rules impose a holding period on authorizations granted pursuant to a Tribal Priority, for a period beginning from the award of a construction permit through four years of on-air operations, prohibiting community of license changes and/or technical changes that would result in the modified facility no longer qualifying for a Tribal Priority. See First R&O, 25 FCC Rcd at 1586, 1593, 1596-97. This is to discourage trafficking in authorizations granted pursuant to the Tribal Priority, which could frustrate the goals of the priority and potentially harm the communities that the Tribal Priority is intended to benefit. The same rationale applies in the commercial FM context with regard to authorizations awarded (1) to a singleton TQ Window applicant, (2) after a settlement among TQ Window applicants, and (3) after an auction among a closed group of bidders composed only of threshold qualified tribal applicants. Accordingly, the permittee or licensee of an authorization awarded to a TQ Window singleton, after a post-TQ window settlement, or after an auction to a closed group of threshold qualified tribal applicants, is prohibited from assigning or transferring the authorization, except to another party that qualifies for the Tribal Priority under which the Tribal Allotment was awarded in all respects, for a period beginning from the award of a construction permit through four years of on-air operations.
12. In the event that no qualifying party applies during the TQ Window, and the Tribal Allotment proponent requests that its pending FCC Form 301 application not be immediately processed (by sending a letter to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, staff during the TQ Window), the Tribal Allotment will be placed in a queue to be auctioned in the normal course for vacant FM allotments. When the Tribal Allotment is offered at auction for the first time, only applicants meeting the threshold qualifications (those who would have qualified to add the Tribal Allotment, including the original proponent of the allotment, as detailed above) may specify that particular Tribal Allotment on FCC Form 175, Application to Participate in an FCC Auction. Any applicant not meeting threshold qualifications that selects the Tribal Allotment in its Form 175 application will be prohibited from entering a bid for the Tribal Allotment. Qualifying Tribal applicants must, as noted above, otherwise qualify to bid at auction, and must comply with all Commission rules relating to the conduct of auctions and award of construction permits to winning bidders, as discussed above.
13. Should no qualifying party apply to bid on a Tribal Allotment in the first auction in which it is offered, or should no such party qualify to bid in the first auction in which a Tribal Allotment is offered, then the Tribal Allotment will be offered in a subsequent auction or auctions, and any applicant, whether or not a Tribe or Tribal entity, may apply for the Tribal Allotment. The Commission declined to adopt the commenters' suggestion that a Tribal Allotment only be offered for initial licensing to a qualifying Tribe or Tribal entity in perpetuity. Such a prohibition would frustrate the policies favoring expeditious initiation of radio service, and disfavoring the practice of allowing spectrum to lie fallow for indefinite periods.
14. Due to the Commission's adoption of the threshold qualifications approach, it did not adopt its original proposal of a Tribal bidding credit. The Commission continues to believe that a bidding credit, of whatever magnitude, is insufficient to ensure that Tribal Allotments will end up in the hands of qualifying Tribal applicants. See Second R&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 2588-89. It is expected that, under the procedures adopted, the majority of FM commercial Tribal Allotments will be awarded through the TQ Window approach. Moreover, to the extent that multiple qualifying Tribes or Tribal entities would bid on a Tribal Allotment at auction, all would likely qualify for the same Tribal or new entrant bidding credits. Adding a bidding credit to the procedures adopted here would therefore serve no purpose.
15. The procedures adopted here are designed to accommodate both those Tribes and Tribal entities seeking to establish new commercial FM services quickly, and those Tribes needing more time to marshal their resources. These procedures also align with Congress's direction that the Commission use threshold qualifications to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings when it is in the public interest to do so. 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E). Most importantly, these procedures provide the best means of assuring that FM commercial allotments pursuant to the Tribal Priority will be awarded to qualifying Tribes or Tribal entities, thus achieving the goals of the Tribal Priority.
16. The Commission realizes that any process leading to deployment of communications services on Tribal lands and removing barriers to entry must recognize Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, the unique needs and priorities of Native Nations and Tribal communities, and the importance of consultation and coordination with Tribal government and Native community leaders. It has historically acknowledged “the rights of Indian Tribal governments to set their own communications priorities and goals for the welfare of their membership.” See Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080-81 (2000). To that end, the Commission directed the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) and the Audio Division of the Media Bureau (AD) to coordinate in establishing informational materials and training opportunities for Tribes and Tribal entities, in order to help them better understand the complexities of the threshold qualification and licensing processes established herein. Additionally, ONAP and AD were directed, as appropriate, to remain available to consult with Tribal applicants on any questions that they may have at any stage of the radio application and licensing processes, especially as they relate to Tribal licensing priorities. Id. at 4082.
17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 603, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Second FNPRM to this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Second FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 604.
18. In the Third R&O, the Commission adopted new procedures under which commercial FM allotments added using the Commission's Tribal Priority may be awarded to tribal applicants meeting the threshold qualifications for adding such an allotment. The new procedures were adopted in order to provide a significant opportunity for the award of such tribal allotments to tribal applicants, in
19. The further rulemaking proceeding leading to the Third R&O was initiated to obtain further comments concerning an alternative proposal to assist Native American Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (Tribes) seeking to establish new commercial FM service to Tribal communities. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed an auction bidding credit to Tribes and entities owned by Tribes. The Commission received only one proposal for a potential tribal bidding credit: To grant Tribes a 35 percent Tribal Bidding Credit (TBC), to be added to any new entrant bidding credit for which they may qualify, to a maximum of 60 percent. The Commission believed this record was inconclusive to adopt a TBC, and further believed it was unclear whether and how a TBC could be crafted to advance the dual goals of increasing Tribal ownership of radio facilities and maximizing the value of spectrum through competitive bidding, as mandated by 47 U.S.C. 309(j). On further consideration, the Commission determined that an alternative approach would more effectively achieve the policy goals underlying the Tribal Priority adopted in the First R&O in this proceeding, 25 FCC Rcd at 15896-97, and be more consistent with its statutory mandate. See 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E).
20. Specifically, in the Second FNPRM the Commission sought comment on whether to require, as a threshold qualification to apply for a commercial FM channel allotted pursuant to the Tribal Priority, that applicants qualify for a Tribal Priority for that channel. Such an approach is consistent with other procedures used by the Commission, such as those used to reserve vacant FM allotments for noncommercial educational (NCE) use. Additionally, while the Tribal Priority operates as a dispositive preference in the AM commercial and FM NCE application contexts, as currently formulated the priority is not dispositive for FM commercial stations, because a Tribe that adds an FM allotment using the Tribal Priority may still be outbid at auction by a non-Tribal applicant. The alternative approach proposed by the Commission would correct this asymmetry, and would also more effectively ensure that FM allotments added using the Tribal Priority are ultimately licensed to Tribes, who would use such FM channels for their intended purposes of promoting Tribal language, culture, and self-government. The Commission therefore sought comment on this alternative approach and its potential ramifications, including whether non-Tribal applicants should be allowed to apply for FM allotments added using the Tribal Priority, but for which no Tribe expresses interest. The Commission also sought additional input from commenters on the TBC, and on other ways in which the Commission could promote commercial Tribal radio service, including comment on potential barriers that may discourage Tribal participation in the broadcast auction and licensing processes.
21. Commenters on these issues favored the adoption of the threshold qualifications procedure, as the best means of ensuring that Tribal-added FM allotments would ultimately be licensed to those whom the Tribal Priority was meant to benefit. Native Public Media and the National Congress of American Indians (NPM/NCAI), filing joint comments, expressed concern that expedited procedures would force Tribes to receive construction permits before they were financially and technically able to construct facilities. Another commenter, Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (GRTI), agreed, but at the same time argued that there should be expedited threshold qualifications procedures for those Tribal applicants who are ready and able to begin station construction. All commenters agreed that Tribal allotments should not be made available to non-Tribal applicants at any time. Commenters also agreed that, if the threshold qualifications procedure were not adopted, a TBC of up to 60 percent should be afforded to Tribal applicants for FM allotments added using the Tribal Priority.
22. In the Third R&O in this proceeding, the Commission adopted the threshold qualifications procedure proposed in the Second FNPRM. Under the threshold qualifications procedure, once a commercial FM allotment is allocated using the Tribal Priority (Tribal Allotment), within a reasonable time thereafter the Commission staff will announce by Public Notice a Threshold Qualifications Window (TQ Window). During the TQ Window, any Tribe or Tribal entity that could qualify to add that particular Tribal Allotment may file FCC Form 301 for the Tribal Allotment. The original Tribal Allotment proponent, which will already have filed Form 301 at the time it proposed the allotment, must submit to the staff a notice stating that it wishes its already-filed Form 301 application to be processed immediately, or make that statement in an amendment to its Form 301. An applicant in the TQ Window must demonstrate that it meets all of the eligibility criteria for grant of a Tribal Priority at the allotment stage. See paragraph <8>, above.
23. If only one acceptable application is filed during the TQ Window, whether by the original Tribal Allotment proponent submitting notification to process its application immediately or by another qualified applicant, that application will be processed promptly, and the Tribal Allotment will not be auctioned. In the event that two or more acceptable applications are filed during the TQ Window, the Commission will announce a limited period, after the close of the TQ Window but before the next FM auction, in which the parties may negotiate a settlement (including a time-sharing agreement) or bona fide merger, as a way of resolving the mutual exclusivity between their applications. There is precedent for such settlements or mergers in the AM auction context, involving certain mutually exclusive applicants for new and modified AM stations. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15927 (1998), (subsequent history omitted). If a settlement or merger is reached, the parties shall so notify the Commission as set forth in the Public Notice announcing the TQ Window. The staff will promptly begin processing the surviving application pursuant to the settlement or merger. If a settlement or merger cannot be reached among the mutually exclusive applicants, the Tribal Allotment will be auctioned during the next scheduled FM auction. However, at that time only the applicants whose applications were accepted for filing during the TQ Window, as well as the original Tribal Allotment proponent, will be permitted to bid on that particular Tribal Allotment,
24. In the event that no qualifying party applies during the TQ Window,
25. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
26. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
27. The rules and policies adopted in the Third R&O will primarily apply to Tribes, consortia of Tribes, and entities 51 or more percent owned by Tribes or consortia, that apply for commercial FM radio stations, but potentially will apply to all AM and FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees, to the extent that they may ultimately be allowed to apply for Tribal Allotments in the event that qualified Tribal applicants do not do so. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. 15 U.S.C. 632. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations. Id. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly included. Id. However, radio stations that are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program material are classified under another NAICS number. Id. The SBA has established a small business size standard for this category, which is: firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts. 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2008). According to BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database on November 1, 2011, 10,785 (97%) of 11,127 commercial radio stations have revenue of $7 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. Please note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger corporations having much higher revenue. This estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any ultimate changes to the rules and forms.
28. As described, certain rules and procedures will change, although the changes will not result in substantial increases in burdens on most applicants. The new procedures will only apply to Tribes and entities majority owned by Tribes, which do not constitute the majority of commercial FM applicants. Moreover, because of the geographic limits of commercial FM allotments, and the qualifying criteria for the Tribal Priority, the number of threshold qualified applicants for a given allotment will likely be small. Questions will be modified in FCC Form 301 to indicate whether the applicant is applying for a Tribal Allotment, and certifying that it qualifies for the Tribal Priority for that particular Tribal Allotment. These are largely self-identification questions reflecting the applicant's status, although in the case of eligibility for the Tribal Priority some geographic analysis may be required, and/or a showing may be needed to establish eligibility for the Tribal Priority in the absence of tribal lands as defined in the First R&O. Additionally, questions will have to be added to FCC Form 175, in the case of Tribal Allotments that proceed to competitive bidding, in order to establish the applicant's eligibility to apply for a Tribal Allotment in the first instance. However, these burdens should be moderate to minimal, as it is anticipated that a substantial number of commercial tribal FM allotments will be awarded before the auction stage, and many threshold qualified tribal applicants will have established their qualifications before auction, either at the allocations stage or during a TQ window. In any event, such burdens are needed in order to achieve the Commission's statutory mandate of fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service (and, in the case of Tribal Priority claimants, are necessary in order to open up the Tribal Priority to greater numbers of Tribes seeking to establish new radio service). Certain notifications may also be required of some applicants, for example, notification that a Tribal
29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
30. With regard to the proposals in the Second FNPRM, NPM/NCAI expressed concern about the ability of some Tribes to act quickly to construct and license new commercial FM stations. There is, according to NPM/NCAI, a significant and adverse economic impact that some Tribes face when seeking to initiate new radio service. Factors causing such an adverse economic impact include lack of capital or federal program support; short construction seasons in many Tribal areas; complications with regard to tower siting, due to factors such as preservation of sacred sites and Bureau of Indian Affairs land use policies; and lack of easy access to materials and engineering expertise. While not disagreeing with NPM/NCAI on this issue, GRTI pointed to what it perceives as Commission delays in allocating new FM allotments and making them available for auction, delaying the initiation of new service by Tribes ready and able to begin construction immediately. In order to accommodate these dual concerns, the Commission adopted a threshold qualifications approach to Tribal commercial FM allotments that provides an early opportunity for application for Tribes that are ready to commence construction, as well as a later opportunity (up to, but likely no more than, two years) for those Tribes that may lack the resources to commence construction soon after a channel is allotted using the Tribal Priority. In this way, the Commission's adopted procedure is designed to reduce the burdens on these groups of potential applicants, based on the concerns expressed in their comments. Although the Commission could have adopted strictly an expedited threshold qualifications procedure—awarding a construction permit for a Tribal Allotment through a TQ Window opened shortly after allocation of the Tribal Allotment—this would have forced those Tribes lacking the resources to commence construction immediately either to delay proposing an allotment or to risk expiration of the construction permit before construction could be completed. Accordingly, by adopting the TQ Window process over the proposed alternative of an expedited threshold qualifications procedure, the Commission has chosen the alternative that imposes a substantially less significant economic impact.
31. The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Third R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
32. Accordingly,
33.
34.
Radio broadcast services.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
(f) * * *
(6)(i) When a non-reserved channel FM allotment is added to the Table of FM Allotments using the Tribal Priority described in Note 5 to this section, the FCC will specify by Public Notice a window filing period during which only those applicants that satisfy all of the eligibility criteria listed in Note 5 to this section with regard to the specific Tribal Priority FM allotment(s) listed in the Public Notice may file a long-form application for the Tribal Priority FM allotment. Only applications from applicants meeting the “threshold qualifications” listed in Note 5 will be accepted during this window filing period.
(ii) If only one application for the Tribal Priority FM allotment is accepted for filing during the threshold qualifications window, the long-form application will be processed. If two or more applications for the Tribal Priority FM allotment are accepted for filing during the threshold qualifications window, the FCC will specify by Public Notice a period of time, after the close of the threshold qualifications window but before the next FM auction, during which the parties may negotiate a settlement or
(iii) If no application is accepted for filing during the threshold qualifications window, and the party that initially proposed the Tribal Priority FM allotment requests by letter to the Audio Division, Media Bureau, that its pending long-form application not be immediately processed, the Tribal Priority FM allotment will be auctioned as described in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of this section in the normal course for vacant FM allotments. When a Tribal Priority FM allotment is offered at auction for the first time, only those applicants meeting the threshold qualifications for that specific Tribal Priority FM allotment, as described in Note 5 to this section, may participate in the auction of that allotment.
(iv) Should no applicant meeting threshold qualifications, as described in Note 5 to this section, apply to bid on a Tribal Priority FM allotment in the first auction in which it is offered, or should no applicant meeting threshold qualifications qualify to bid in the first auction in which a Tribal Priority FM allotment is offered, then the Tribal Priority FM allotment will be offered in a subsequent auction. Any such subsequent auction of a Tribal Priority FM allotment shall proceed as described in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of this section, and any qualified applicant may participate in the auction of the Tribal Priority FM allotment in such subsequent auction, regardless of whether it meets the threshold qualifications with regard to that specific Tribal Priority FM allotment.
Note 5 to § 73.3573. The “Tribal Priority” is that established by the Commission in Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, MB Docket 09-52. See First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket 09-52, FCC 10-24, 75 FR 9797, 75 FR 9856, 75 FR 73976; Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket 09-52, FCC 11-28, 76 FR 14362, 76 FR 18942; Third Report and Order, MB Docket 09-52, FCC 11-190. To qualify for the Tribal Priority, and thus meet “threshold qualifications” for a particular allotment, an applicant must demonstrate that it meets all of the following eligibility criteria: (a) The applicant is either a federally recognized Tribe or Tribal consortium, or an entity 51 percent or more of which is owned or controlled by a Tribe or Tribes. Qualifying Tribes or Tribal entities must be those at least a portion of whose Tribal Lands lie within the principal community contour of the proposed facility. Although the 51 or greater percent Tribal control threshold need not consist of a single Tribe, the qualifying entity must be 51 percent or more owned or controlled by Tribes at least a portion of whose Tribal Lands lie within the facility's principal community contour; (b)(1) at least 50 percent of the area within the proposed principal community contour is over that Tribe's Tribal Lands, or (2) the proposed principal community contour (i) encompasses 50 percent or more of that Tribe's Tribal Lands, (ii) serves at least 2,000 people living on Tribal Lands, and (iii) the total population on Tribal Lands residing within the proposed service contour constitutes at least 50 percent of the total covered population (and, in the case of either (b)(1) or (b)(2) the proposed principal community contour does not cover more than 50 percent of the Tribal Lands of a Tribe that is not a party to the application); (c) the proposed community of license must be located on Tribal Lands; and (d) the proposed service must constitute first or second aural (reception) service, or first local Tribal-owned commercial transmission service at the proposed community of license. For purposes of this section, the definition of “Tribal Lands” is the same as that set forth at footnote 15 of the First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 10-24, and as further set forth at paragraphs 8-10 and 59 of the Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 11-28.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to conduct a public meeting on January 24, 2012, in Rockville, Maryland, to solicit input on a draft Branch Technical Position (BTP) on the Import of non-U.S. Origin Radioactive Sources. In 2010, the NRC published a final rule amending 10 CFR part 110 (75 FR 44072; July 28, 2010). Among other things, it added the phrase “Of U.S. origin” to the first exclusion to the definition of “radioactive waste” in § 110.2. The phrase was added to the final rule in response to a public comment on the proposed rule to clarify the exclusion. Since publication of the final rule, industry has raised concerns with NRC staff regarding established industry practices and the need for guidance on implementation of the “U.S. origin” exclusion. The staff is holding a public meeting to obtain comments from stakeholders on the draft BTP and to discuss implementation issues associated with the “U.S. origin” exclusion.
Members of the public may provide feedback at the public meeting or may submit written comments on the issues discussed in this document. Comments on the BTP presented in this notice and discussed at the meeting should be postmarked no later than March 5, 2012. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so. NRC plans to consider these stakeholder views in the development of a revised draft BTP.
Written comments may be sent to the address listed in the
The public meeting will be held on January 24, 2012, from 9:00 to 11 a.m. at One White Flint North, Room 16-B04, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The agenda for the public meeting will be noticed no fewer than ten (10) days prior to the meeting on the NRC's electronic public meeting schedule web page at
The staff has prepared the BTP draft for review by stakeholders. This draft is meant to serve as a starting point for NRC's efforts to develop the document. This draft BTP does not change the regulations in 10 CFR part 110; it clarifies what is meant by “U.S. origin” and details how the NRC interprets this exclusion to the definition of “radioactive waste.”
Staff is using the public's input, now, to frame and develop the scope of the draft BTP, which will be issued again. Following the public meeting, staff will consider comments received at the meeting and in response to this
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0008 in the subject line of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see “Submitting Comments and Accessing Information” in the
•
•
•
•
•
Jenny Tobin Wollenweber, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301) 415-2328; email
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this action using the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 110 (Part 110), “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material,” establishes the general and specific export and import licensing requirements for special nuclear, source and byproduct material including radioactive waste. “Radioactive waste” is defined in 10 CFR 110.2 as “[a]ny material that contains or is contaminated with source, byproduct or special nuclear material that by its possession would require a specific radioactive material license in accordance with this Chapter [10 CFR Chapter I] and is exported or imported for the purposes of disposal in a land disposal facility as defined in 10 CFR Part 61, a disposal area as defined in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, or an equivalent facility.”
There are six exclusions in 10 CFR 110.2 to the definition of “radioactive waste.” The sealed source exclusion (exclusion one) is defined as radioactive material that is “[o]f U.S. origin and contained in a sealed source, or device containing a sealed source, that is being returned to a manufacturer, distributor or other entity which is authorized to receive and possess the sealed source or the device containing a sealed source.”
“U.S. origin was added in the first exclusion to the definition of radioactive waste to clarify that the exclusion only applies to sources of U.S. origin. U.S. origin sources may include sources with U.S. origin material and sources or devices manufactured, assembled or distributed by a U.S. company from a licensed domestic facility. Disused sources that originated in a country other than the United States would require a specific license if being exported or imported for disposal.”
The NRC has developed this technical position to provide guidance to source manufacturers, distributors, or other entity on the NRC's application of the sealed source exclusion to imports into the U.S. of non-U.S. origin disused sources.
On July 28, 2010, the NRC published a final rule in the
After the addition of “U.S. origin” to the sealed source exclusion in the 2010 rule, it came to the staff's attention that, while it remains a widespread industry practice to exchange new and disused sources on a “one-for-one” basis, in light of the current global supply market it is not always possible for a supplier to definitively ascertain the origin of a particular disused source that is exchanged for a new one before import and receipt of the disused source. With established customers, the disused sources will generally be of U.S. origin; however, for new customers, some of the sources initially being returned may not be of U.S. origin.
Once a source is imported and received, the manufacturer, distributor, or other entity technically has the ability to determine the source's origin. However, the only way for the supplier to accomplish this is by exposing its personnel to additional radiation doses. Specifically, the supplier must use a glove-box to take the source out of its casing to read the serial numbers and correlate those numbers to different manufacturers' coding patterns.
The NRC has construed the “U.S. origin” provision in the context of the industry's recent clarification of international source exchange practices.
The NRC believes that this application of the sealed source exclusion reasonably balances the interests of public health and safety and international policy interests in responsible handling of sources at the end of their useful life. The approach preserves the fundamental policy rationale underlying the original exclusion—to prevent sources from being dispersed in unregulated locations around the world by facilitating a “one-for one” exchange of U.S.-supplied new and disused sources—while avoiding additional and unnecessary radiation exposure to workers consistent with the “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) requirement in 10 CFR 20.1101(b).
The NRC expects U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers to inform their customers about U.S. import licensing requirements for disused sources. It is recommended that U.S. importers retain copies of their communications with their foreign customers regarding U.S. import requirements. The U.S. importer at all times must comply with the specific license requirement for disused sources known to be of non-U.S. origin prior to import into the U.S. A good faith effort by the importer may include communication of U.S. import requirements with its foreign customers, examination of a photograph of the source the customer seeks to exchange, and other relevant information related to the disused sources' origin.
Consistent with 10 CFR 110.53, the NRC may inspect export and import records to ensure that licensees understand the NRC's application of “U.S. origin” and that the company is making an effort to amend its business practices to try to determine source origin (from user paperwork and communication) before an import occurs.
This position is being distributed to all Agreement States and applicable NRC material licensees.
Additionally, the NRC has coordinated this position with the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Safety Administration's (DOE/NNSA) Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI). One of GTRI's programs repatriates sources from around the world that are in unsafe or insecure locations. The NRC does not have import licensing jurisdiction when U.S. companies import disused sources on behalf of NNSA's GTRI program; therefore, the licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 110 would not apply to such imports.
This technical position reflects the current NRC staff position on acceptable use of the general license for import of disused radioactive sources. Therefore, except in those cases in which the source manufacturer or distributor proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with the definition of “radioactive waste” in 10 CFR 110.2, the guidance described herein will be used in the evaluation of the use of the general import license for disused sources.
This proposed policy statement does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a certain generator control unit (GCU). This proposed AD was prompted by laboratory tests which revealed a potential fault in the overvoltage protection on a certain part-numbered GCU. This proposed AD would require replacing each affected GCU with an airworthy GCU. In addition, any affected GCU is not approved for installation on any helicopter. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the overvoltage protection of the GCU, degraded performance of the electrical power generation and distribution systems, a fire, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15, 21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone 39-0331-711133; fax 39-0331-711180; or at
Mark Wiley, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 222-5134; fax: (817) 222-5961; email:
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No. 2009-0042, dated February 25, 2009 (AD-2009-0042) to correct an unsafe condition for the Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, all serial numbers (S/Ns) except S/Ns 31002, 31003, 31004, and 31007. EASA advises that laboratory tests performed on a new GCU model under development have shown a potential fault in the overvoltage protection of currently installed GCUs, part number (P/N) 1152550-3. EASA advises that this condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the helicopter's electrical power generation and distribution system functionalities.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.
Agusta S.p.A. issued Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-133, Revision A, dated March 17, 2009 (BT), for Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, S/Ns 31005 up to S/N 31143, except for S/Ns 31007, 31037, 31038, 31094; S/N 31112; S/Ns 31146 up to S/N 31148; S/N 31155; S/Ns 31201 up to S/N 31218; and S/Ns 41001 up to S/N 41022, except S/N 41007; with a GCU, P/N 1152550-3. This BT specifies, within 6 months from receipt of the BT, removing GCU, P/N 1152550-3, modifying electrical connector A13P1 and A14P1, and replacing each GCU with an airworthy GCU, P/N 1152550-4 or 1152550-5, to improve electrical power generation and distribution system functionalities. EASA classified this BT as mandatory and issued AD 2009-0048 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
This proposed AD would require, within 6 months, removing the No. 1 and No.2 GCU, P/N 1152550-3, modifying the electrical connectors A13P1 and A14P1 by installing wiring to the power distribution panel, and installing a No. 1 and No. 2 GCU with P/N 1152550-4 or 1152550-5. Both GCUs must have identical P/Ns on the same helicopter.
The EASA AD does not apply to certain serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, and this proposed AD applies to all serial-numbered Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 72 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate that it would take about 4 work hours per helicopter at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $42,384 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD for the U.S. operator fleet to be $3,076,128.
According to the Agusta service information some 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 by Agusta. Accordingly, 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.
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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic 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:
This AD applies to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, with a generator control unit (GCU), part-number (P/N) 1152550-3 installed; certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a potential fault in the overvoltage protection in GCUs currently installed on Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the overvoltage protection of the GCU, degraded performance of the electrical power generation and distribution systems, or fire, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Remove the No. 1 and No. 2 GCU, P/N 1152550-3. Do not install GCU, P/N 1152550-3, on any helicopter.
(2) Modify the electrical connector A13P1 (GCU #1) and A14P1 (GCU #2) by installing the wiring to the power distribution panel (PDP) for your serial-numbered helicopter as depicted in Figure 1 of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-133, Revision A, dated March 17, 2009.
(3) Using either GCU P/N 1152550-4 or GCU P/N 1152550-5, install a No. 1 and No. 2 GCU that has the same part number. Having different part-numbered GCUs on the same helicopter is not approved.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 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) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (Italy) AD 2009-0042, dated February 25, 2009.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2430 DC generating system.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an electrical arc and hydraulic haze in the wheel bay of the left-hand main landing gear (MLG) possibly resulting from chafing between the hydraulic high pressure hose and electrical wiring of the green electrical motor pump (EMP). This proposed AD would require prohibiting in-flight use of the green EMPs; revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) limitations section; installing a placard in the cockpit overhead panel; doing a one-time general visual inspection for correct condition and installation of hydraulic pressure hoses, electrical conduits, feeder cables, and associated clamping devices; and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct chafing of hydraulic pressure hoses and electrical wiring of the green EMPs, which in combination with a system failure, could cause an uncontrolled and undetected fire in the MLG bay.
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 Airbus SAS—EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0071, dated April 18, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An operator reported an electrical arc and a large hydraulic haze in the left hand Main Landing Gear (LH MLG) wheel bay that occurred during ground operation. The analysis revealed that this occurrence is likely the result of chafing between hydraulic high pressure hose and electrical wiring of the Green Electrical Motor Pump (EMP).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in combination with a system failure leading to the use of the Green EMPs in flight, could lead to an uncontrolled and undetected fire in the MLG bay.
For the reasons explained above, this AD temporarily prohibits the in-flight use of green EMPs, by mandating an update of the Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) limitations section and installation of a placard in the cockpit overhead panel. This [EASA] AD requires also a one-time [general] visual inspection of hydraulic pressure hoses and electrical wiring of Green EMPs and corrective action(s), depending on findings.
Airbus has issued All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011; and All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 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 58 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. Required parts would cost about $200 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $21,460, or $370 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.
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 Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29: Hydraulic Power.
This AD was prompted by a report of an electrical arc and hydraulic haze in the wheel bay of the left-hand main landing gear (MLG) possibly resulting from chafing between the hydraulic high pressure hose and electrical wiring of the green electrical motor pump (EMP). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of hydraulic pressure hoses and electrical wiring of the green EMPs, which in combination with a system failure, could cause an uncontrolled and undetected fire in the MLG bay.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
For all airplanes, as of the effective date of this AD, the in-flight use of green EMPs is prohibited. Before the next flight, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Install in the cockpit on the hydraulic power overhead panel 427VU, a locally manufactured self-adhesive placard prohibiting the in-flight use of the green EMPs, in accordance with the instructions in Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with EATON (formerly VICKERS) hydraulic EMPs); or Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX) hydraulic EMPs).
(2) Revise the Limitations section of the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM) to prohibit the in-flight use of the green EMPs.
Inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM Limitations section is acceptable for complying with the requirement of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
Within 500 flight hours or 4 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a one-time general visual inspection for correct condition (
(1) If any damage or chafing marks are found during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, replace or repair the affected parts (hydraulic pressure hoses, electrical conduits, feeder cables, clamps, and spacer, if installed), in accordance with the instructions in Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with EATON (formerly VICKERS) hydraulic EMPs); or Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX) hydraulic EMPs).
(2) Before further flight after compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, remove the placard required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; and remove the revision of the Limitations section of the AFM, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD; from the airplane and the AFM, respectively.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0071, dated April 18, 2011; Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011; and Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 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 Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of non-conformities of certain power turbine (PT) blade fir-tree roots. This proposed AD would require removing the affected PT blades from service on or before reaching a new reduced life limit for those certain PT blades. We are proposing this AD to prevent PT blade rupture, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or accident.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca,
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7772; fax: (781) 238-7199; 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 for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0218, dated November 10, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During production of Arriel 2 Power Turbine (PT) wheels, Turbomeca has detected geometric non-conformities on blade fir-tree roots. The technical investigations carried out by Turbomeca have shown that this non-conformity is due to PT blade manufacturing and that only a limited number of PT blades are potentially affected.
This situation, if not detected and corrected, may potentially lead to a reduction in the fatigue resistance of the PT blades, which can reduce their in service use limit. This reduction of fatigue resistance can potentially result in blade rupture, which could cause an uncommanded in-flight shutdown, ultimately leading to an emergency autorotation landing for a single-engine helicopter.
To address this unsafe condition, Turbomeca has issued Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 72 2842, Version A, in which the life limit of those PT blades is reduced to 5,000 Flight Cycles (FC).
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 72 2842, Version A, dated September 23, 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 France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has 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 provided by EASA and determined the 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 150 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. A prorated replacement M04 module would cost about $20,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,051,000.
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); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
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 20, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines with at least one installed power turbine (PT) blade part number (P/N) 2 292 81 A01 0, serial numbers (S/Ns) 102782 through 120230 inclusive, or, S/Ns 120293 through 120390 inclusive.
This AD was prompted by the detection of geometric non-conformities on PT blade fir-tree roots. We are issuing this AD to prevent PT blade rupture, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or accident.
Unless already done, do the following actions within 5,000 flight cycles on the PT blades, or within one month after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) Replace the PT blades with PT blades eligible for installation; or
(2) Replace the M04 module with an M04 module having PT blades eligible for installation; or
(3) Replace the PT wheel assembly with a PT wheel assembly having PT blades eligible for installation.
(4) Guidance on the replacements specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) can be found in Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 72 2842, Version A, dated September 23, 2011.
For the purposes of this AD, a PT blade eligible for installation is one not listed in paragraph (c) of this AD or, one listed in paragraph (c) of this AD with fewer than 5,000 flight cycles.
From the effective date of this AD:
(1) Do not install a PT blade as listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, that has 5,000 or more flight cycles, into any engine.
(2) Do not install any engine with a PT blade as listed in paragraph (c) of this AD, that has 5,000 or more flight cycles, onto a helicopter.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7772; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0218, dated November 10, 2011, and Turbomeca S.A. Alert Service Bulletin No. A292 72 2842, Version A, dated September 23, 2011, for related information.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781) 238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all RR RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines. That NPRM proposed to supersede an existing AD that requires inspecting the intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor shaft rear balance land for cracks, which could lead to engine failure. This action revises that NPRM by changing the optional terminating action for RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines to mandatory terminating action. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by March 20, 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 Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418 or email from
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone: (781) 238-7143; fax: (781) 238-7199; 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
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to RR RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines. That NPRM published in the
Since we issued that NPRM, RR has ceased efforts to develop an on-wing ECI. Therefore the optional terminating action for RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines only, should be made mandatory. EASA has also superseded EASA AD 2010-0266R1, dated January 6, 2011, with EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0221, dated November 14, 2011 to accomplish the same corrective actions as proposed herein.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
US Airways requested that we allow borescope inspection using RR Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211-72-AG270 when at shop visit, if the exposure of the IP compressor is not visible for ECI. The commenter stated that airlines will incur more maintenance costs if not allowed to do borescope inspections under this circumstance.
We do not agree. The visual/ECI is not required unless the rear face of the IP compressor is exposed. Our Definition paragraph defined a shop visit as the introduction of an engine into a shop, and disassembly sufficient to expose the IP compressor module rear face. We did not change the NPRM.
The Boeing Airplane Company, Rolls-Royce plc, and American Airlines requested that we correct two service bulletin reference errors and two paragraph reference errors in the compliance section. We agree. We revised this NPRM by changing the Service Bulletin (SB) and paragraph reference errors, specifically changing “RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011” to “RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG402, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011”, changing “RR SB No. RB.211-72-G401, Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011” to “RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG401, Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011”, changing the reference in paragraph (k)(2)(i) from “(h)” to “(g)(1)(i)”, and by changing paragraph “(f)(3)” to paragraph “(g)”.
Rolls-Royce plc requested that, when referencing the RB211-Trent 800 service information, we make the inspection requirements consistent with the RB211-Trent 700 inspection requirements, as they are the same except for the compliance interval.
We agree. We changed paragraph (g)(1)(i) in this NPRM to state to use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(b) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
Rolls-Royce plc requested that we reference EASA AD 2011-0221, dated November 14, 2011, in the NPRM since it supersedes EASA AD 2010-0266R1, dated January 6, 2011.
We agree and changed the EASA AD reference.
Rolls-Royce plc requested that we change the compliance time from “next shop visit”, to “next shop visit or within 90 months after the effective date of the AD” to be consistent with EASA's AD.
We do not agree. The fretting caused by movement between the balance weights and the IPC rear face is related to engine run time, not calendar time. Shop visits are also related to average run time. We did not change the NPRM.
We are proposing this supplemental NPRM 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. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM. As a result, we have determined to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.
This supplemental NPRM would require:
• For the RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines, on wing initial and repetitive borescope inspections and when in the shop, repetitive ECIs and visual inspections for cracks on the rear balance land; and
• For the RB211-Trent 500 engines, initial and repetitive in-shop visual inspections or ECIs for cracks on the rear balance land.
• For the RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 engines, adding a mandatory terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 136 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3.5 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed on-wing/in-shop visual inspections, about 2.5 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed in-shop ECIs, and about 8 work-hours to rebalance the IP compressor. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $470,696.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue
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 removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-18-08, Amendment 39-15665 (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008), and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by March 20, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2008-18-08, Amendment 39-15665, (73 FR 52201, September 9, 2008).
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 553-61, 553A2-61, 556-61, 556A2-61, 556B-61, 556B2-61, 560-61, 560A2-61, 768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, 875-17, 877-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 892-17, 892B-17, and 895-17 turbofan engines.
We are superseding AD 2008-18-08 because additional cracks on RB211-Trent 700 and RB211-Trent 800 intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor rotor shafts have been found since that AD was issued. This cracking could lead to IP compressor rotor shaft failure, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(i) Within 625 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land. Use RR Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211-72-AG270, Revision 4, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(a) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
(ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 625 cycles-since-last inspection (CSLI). You may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last eddy current inspection, whichever has occurred last.
At each shop visit, eddy current inspect (ECI) and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.A. through 3.D.(3)(b)(v), except paragraphs 3.D.(3)(a)(ii) and 3.D.(3)(b)(iii) to do the inspections.
(i) Within 475 CIS after the effective date of this AD, borescope inspect the IP compressor rotor shaft rear balance land. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 5, dated March 21, 2011, sections 3.A.(2)(b) through 3.A.(2)(c) and 3.A.(3)(a) through 3.A.(3)(c), or 3.B.(2)(a) through 3.B.(2)(c) and 3.B.(4)(a) through 3.B.(4)(c), to do the inspection.
(ii) Thereafter, repeat the inspection within every 475 CSLI. You may count CSLI from the last borescope inspection or the last eddy current inspection, whichever has occurred last.
At each shop visit, ECI and visually inspect the IP compressor rotor rear shaft balance land, and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011, sections 3.A. through 3.D.(3)(b)(v), except paragraphs 3.D.(3)(a)(ii) and 3.D.(3)(b)(iii), to do the inspections.
At each shop visit, ECI the IP compressor rotor shaft and visually inspect the balance weights. Use RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AF260, Revision 5, dated July 7, 2011 sections 3.A. through 3.B.(3)(a)(iii) to do the visual inspection, or RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 3, dated July 7, 2011 section 3.D.(1) through 3.D.(14) to do the ECI.
For the purposes of this AD, a shop visit is defined as introduction of an engine into a shop, and disassembly sufficient to expose the IP compressor module rear face.
(1) As mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive inspections in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at the next shop visit in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on the IPC, modify RB211-Trent 700 engines by removing the existing IPC balance weights, and then rebalancing the IPC as specified in paragraphs 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(6)(e) and 3.B.(6)(g) of RR ASB No. RB.211--72-AG402, Revision 2, dated July 7, 2011.
(2) As mandatory terminating action to the in-shop repetitive inspections in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, at the next shop visit in which any level of inspection or strip is scheduled to be carried out on the IPC, modify RB211-Trent 800 engines by removing the existing IPC balance weights, and then rebalancing the IPC as specified in paragraphs 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(6)(e) and 3.B.(6)(g) of RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG401, Revision 2, dated July 5, 2011.
(1) For RB211-Trent 700 series engines:
(i) An on-wing inspection done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG270, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, or Revision 2, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 3, dated February 25, 2011, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
(ii) An in-shop inspection done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1, dated
(iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the effective date of this AD using RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011, meets the rebalancing requirement in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) For RB211-Trent 800 series engines:
(i) An on-wing inspection done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG264, Revision 3, dated December 21, 2010, or Revision 4, dated February 25, 2011, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
(ii) An in-shop inspection done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AG085, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2010, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
(iii) An IPC rebalancing done before the effective date of this AD using RR SB No. RB.211-72-G402, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2011, meets the rebalancing requirement in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(3) For RB211-Trent 500 series engines:
(i) An in-shop visual inspection done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-AF260, Revision 4, dated July 28, 2009, meets the inspection requirement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
(ii) An in-shop ECI done before the effective date of this AD using RR ASB No. RB.211-72-G448, Revision 2, dated December 23, 2010, meets the ECI requirement in paragraph (h) of this AD.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to request an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone: (781) 238-7143; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
(2) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2011-0221, dated November 14, 2011, also pertains to the subject of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418; or email from
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Mars, Inc., has filed a petition proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of spirulina blue, an extract made from the biomass of
Felicia M. Ellison, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, (240) 402-1264.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a color additive petition (CAP 2C0293) has been filed by Mars, Inc., c/o Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St. NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73)
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of inquiry; request for comments.
The Coast Guard is considering revising the regulations governing chemical (drug and alcohol) testing of mariners. In support of that effort, we would like input from mariners, marine employers, service agents, and substance abuse professionals on a number of questions relating to the administration of chemical testing programs for mariners by mariner employers.
Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2010-1064 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
Upon receipt of such comments, the Coast Guard will not place the comments in the public docket and will handle them in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. The Coast Guard will hold them in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket that Coast Guard has received such materials from the commenter. If the Coast Guard receives a request to examine or copy this information, we will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552).
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Robert Schoening, Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (202) 372-1033, email
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related material on the below questions. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
To submit your comment online, go to
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
The Coast Guard is considering revising the regulations governing drug testing of mariners in 46 CFR part 16 and alcohol testing in 33 CFR part 95. In support of that effort, the Coast Guard is requesting information from marine employers, mariners, and the public on several questions related to chemical testing of merchant mariners. The Coast Guard also seeks input from State, local, and Tribal governments and from small entities on issues related to administering a drug testing program. When responding to the questions below, please provide quantitative data on costs, benefits, and other relevant information, specifying sources of information and citations.
Casualties involving drug and alcohol use on commercial vessels can cause a variety of negative impacts, including loss of life, injuries, and property damage. What non-Coast Guard sources of data or information exist detailing benefits or avoided damages that may result from programs which prevent drug and alcohol-related commercial vessel casualties?
Currently, 46 CFR 16.401 requires Employee Assistance Program (EAP) training for employees subject to the chemical testing rules in 46 CFR part 16 and their supervisors. The next five questions focus on supervisors, who are required to have at least 60 minutes of EAP training.
(1) Do you, as a marine employer, or consortium or third-party administrator (C/TPA), require recurring (annual or some other frequency) training for supervisors on the signs and effects of drug and alcohol use?
(2) If so, what is the duration, frequency, and cost of training for supervisors?
(3) What method of training do you use (e.g., classroom, online, written materials, etc.)?
(5) What are the costs of your training?
(6) Would a requirement for recurrent supervisory training impact your business operations? How so and by how much?
(7) What are the benefits, if any, of training for supervisors on the signs and effects of drug and alcohol use? How effective is supervisor training in helping employers identify and prevent drug and alcohol use and resulting accidents?
The Coast Guard is considering a requirement for crewmembers who are selected for testing to report immediately to the testing site upon being notified. The current requirement is that crewmembers randomly selected for testing must report, but how soon they must report is not specified. The Coast Guard believes that requiring mariners to report immediately may improve the reliability and effectiveness of employers' drug-testing programs. Immediate reporting is currently required by the Federal Aviation Administration's rule at 14 CFR 120.109(b)(8), which regulates aviation
(1) What is the average or usual amount of time between when crewmembers are informed of their selection for random testing and their reporting for testing at the collection site?
(2) What is your company or C/TPA's policy or practice, if any, regarding how much time may elapse after the crewmember is notified of the selection before your company or C/TPA considers the delay to be a refusal to submit to testing?
(3) As a marine employer, would a requirement to report immediately for testing impact your business operations? If so, how and by how much?
(4) Do you conduct on-site collection of specimens?
(5) How would immediate reporting for testing improve the reliability and effectiveness of your drug-testing programs?
(6) Do marine employees appear for random drug tests required by Coast Guard regulations during work hours or on their own time?
(7) How effective do you believe a “report immediately” requirement would be in detecting drug use (i.e., by what percent do you estimate non-negative test results would increase if there was a “report immediately” requirement for the industry)?
(8) Do you think a “report immediately” requirement would result in a more effective random drug testing program?
(9) The current requirement is that crewmembers randomly selected for testing must report, but how soon they must report is not specified. Since industry is currently incurring the costs of testing, the Coast Guard does not believe immediate reporting for testing poses significant additional costs. What costs, above and beyond current compliance costs, would be incurred for immediate reporting after notification compared to reporting within 24 hours, or even a few days?
(1) If you are an independent owner/operator, do you use a Consortium or Third Party Administrator (C/TPA) to manage the random testing portion of your chemical testing program? If not, how would it impact your business operations, including costs and burden, to use a consortium?
(2) What are the benefits of using a C/TPA to manage the random testing portion of your chemical testing program?
Under 46 CFR 16.201(c), marine employers who must have a random drug testing program are only required to report failed drug test results for credentialed mariners, not for non-credentialed mariners.
(1) What would be the cost if marine employers were also required to report failed drug tests for non-credentialed mariners?
(2) How many failed drug tests of non-credentialed mariners have you received during the last 5 years? Out of how many tests?
(3) How many failed drug tests of non-credentialed mariners would you expect to see, if marine employers were required to report those test results to the Coast Guard.
(4) What benefit, if any, do you see in requiring all failed drug tests (credentialed and non-credentialed mariners) to be reported to the Coast Guard?
A non-negative specimen is a urine specimen that is adulterated, substituted, positive (for drug(s) or drug metabolite(s)), and/or invalid.
(1) For MROs, how would a requirement to report all non-negative test results to the Coast Guard (in addition to the marine employer) impact your business?
(2) For MROs, what would be your preferred method to report non-negative drug test results to the Coast Guard?
Eighty percent of annual Management Information System reports are submitted through the internet.
(1) If you do not submit your annual MIS data through the internet, what would the cost or savings be if you did?
(2) Would you request an exemption from electronic reporting if one was available?
Under 46 CFR 16.500(c), employers who must have a random drug testing program but who have 10 or fewer employees are exempt from mandatory MIS reporting after their third year of reporting.
(1) Are you taking advantage of this exemption? If so, what would the impact be to you if you no longer could take advantage of this exemption?
(2) What sources of data or information exist on the number of employers that are exempt from mandatory reporting and the cost impacts of requiring reporting by all entities?
Current regulations require that employers who must have a random drug testing program test their crewmembers at a rate equal to 50 percent of their covered crewmembers annually. The Coast Guard is considering allowing individual companies to use a lower testing rate (25 percent) if they can demonstrate a positive test results rate of 1 percent or less for 2 consecutive years.
(1) As an employer, based on past performance, do you believe that you could qualify for the lower testing rate? If so, what would be the cost savings associated with the lower testing rate?
(2) To C/TPAs, how would managing clients, some of whom have a lower testing threshold (25 percent) and others at the standard testing threshold (50 percent), impact your business operations?
Would the measures discussed in this notice have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? What sources of data or information exist detailing the economic impact on small entities, which may result if the measures discussed above were implemented?
Any information provided in response to this request for comments is appreciated and will be considered by the Coast Guard. This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 1.05-1.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on August 9, 2007. This revision pertains to the preconstruction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) program. The revision is intended to update Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR Reform regulations (NSR Reform), and to satisfy the requirements related to antibacksliding. Additionally, the proposed revision makes clarifying changes to regulations that are not related to NSR Reform. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before February 21, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0925 by one of the following methods
A.
B.
C.
D.
Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814-2084, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On August 9, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) submitted a proposed SIP revision pertaining to preconstruction permitting requirements under Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR program.
EPA last took action on the nonattainment NSR provisions of the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997. At that time EPA approved a wholesale revision of Pennsylvania's preconstruction permitting program for minor and major sources and included new and revised subchapters A, B, C, and E under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127. Pennsylvania had adopted the new rules in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) requirement to submit new NSR programs addressing § 182 of the CAA. The only subchapter that was not revised was subchapter D—the state's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Pennsylvania adopted an automatic incorporation by reference (IBR) of the federal PSD regulations of 40 CFR 52.21. This automatic IBR was approved into Pennsylvania's SIP on June 18, 1983 (49 FR 33127). The currently proposed revision has no impact on Pennsylvania's PSD program.
On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as “NSR Reform.” The purpose of this SIP revision is to incorporate changes to Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR rules made as a result of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform, and to address the antibacksliding provisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) decision in
The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (“attainment” areas), as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS (“unclassifiable” areas). Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the nonattainment NSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS (“nonattainment” areas). Collectively, the PSD and nonattainment NSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.
The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply with Plantwide applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provided a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units (Clean Unit test); and (5) excluded pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, which added a definition for “replacement unit” and clarified an issue regarding PALs.
After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, EPA took final action to establish the “reasonable possibility” provision which identifies the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records (72 FR 72607). The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. State agencies may meet the requirements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules with different but equivalent regulations.
On April 30, 2004 EPA published the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, (69 FR 23951) which, among other things, allowed areas that had a higher nonattainment classification under the one-hour ozone standard to impose the NSR requirements of the new, less stringent eight-hour classification. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the classification for the Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area changed from serious under the one-hour standard to moderate under the eight-hour standard. The Phase I rule was subsequently challenged on a number of points, including the NSR provisions; the D.C. Circuit Court determined, in South Coast, that all one-hour ozone NAAQS major NSR requirements must remain in place.
The SIP submittal consists of changes to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121, General Provisions, and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Construction, Modification, Reactivation, and Operation of Sources. This action, when approved, will update Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR regulations as previously approved on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). It will incorporate for the first time the 2002 “NSR Reform” provisions into Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR program, and will satisfy the requirements of the D.C. Circuit Court decision in
Prior to NSR Reform, emission increases associated with a physical change or change in the method of operation at an existing major source were calculated by comparing past actual emissions with the facility's potential to emit after the change, commonly referred to as the actual-to-potential test. In general, NSR Reform allows owners and operators of all major sources to choose between the traditional test and a new test that would compare past actual emissions to a projection of future actual emissions, so long as those projections are based on realistic and reliable information. The latter is commonly referred to as an actual-to-actual test. In addition, the facility would not be required to establish the projected emissions as an enforceable emissions limit.
As noted above, NSR Reform was challenged on all fronts, including the applicability provisions related to the actual-to-actual test and, of particular importance to the Pennsylvania SIP, the Clean Unit test. The Clean Unit test would have allowed facilities that had installed state of the art pollution controls within the past 10 years to avoid triggering NSR even when it would be clear that actual emissions would increase. The D.C. Circuit rejected the Clean Unit test on the grounds that “the CAA unambiguously defines `increases' in terms of actual emissions.” In its concluding paragraph on the matter, the Court opined that “because the plain language of the CAA indicates that Congress intended to apply NSR to changes that increase actual emission instead of potential or allowable emissions, we hold that EPA lacks the authority to promulgate the Clean Unit provision, and we vacate that portion of the 2002 rule, 67 FR 80279-83 (codified at 40 CFR § 52.21(x)) as contrary to the statute under Chevron Step 1.”
Pennsylvania's current SIP rules, approved on December 9, 1997, allow
Pennsylvania has adopted all of the NSR Reform measures with some modifications: The look-back period for determining baseline actual emissions (BAE) is five years for all facilities. However, facilities that are not Electric Generating Units (EGUs) may request up to ten years upon a demonstration that a different period is more representative of normal source operation. Also, BAE do not include emissions associated with malfunctions. Finally, the same 24-month period is to be used for all pollutants when multiple units are affected by a project unless a facility can demonstrate that another 24-month period would be more representative. Another difference is that Pennsylvania rules require projected actual emissions to be incorporated into the required plan approval as an emissions limit. Finally, differences in establishing BAE related to the look-back period and inclusion of emissions from malfunctions, noted above, also apply to PALs in Pennsylvania.
It wasn't necessary for Pennsylvania to make any changes related to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to clarification of the term “reasonable possibility” (72 FR 72607). This is because Pennsylvania facilities that use projected actual emissions with the result that major NSR is not triggered must still obtain a permit. These permits require all facilities to maintain and report their post-change emissions.
On April 30, 2004, EPA designated Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania as moderate nonattainment under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS and revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the one-hour ozone standard, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties had been designated as severe nonattainment. As a result of
In addition to the changes outlined above, the proposed revisions include miscellaneous changes that were intended to provide additional clarity in Pennsylvania's regulations. These changes include the addition of definitions (unrelated to NSR reform) to conform to the federal nonattainment regulations in 40 CFR 51.165, clarification of provisions related to emission reduction credits, the re-codification of certain sections, and some additional clarifying rule changes. The TSD contains more detail on all of the proposed changes, and can be found in the docket for this action.
EPA's review of this material indicates that the 2007 SIP revision, amending Pennsylvania's NSR construction, modification, reactivation and operation permit programs at 25 Pa. Code Section 121.1 and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, significantly strengthens the existing SIP and is consistent with the federal program requirements for nonattainment NSR set forth at 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to approve the August 9, 2007 Pennsylvania SIP revision. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to Pennsylvania' nonattainment NSR program does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster nonattainment areas (hereafter referred to as “Areas”) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
Written comments must be received on or before February 21, 2012.
Submit your comments regarding the two-state Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster area, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0818 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA is proposing to determine that these Areas have clean data for the 2006 24-hour PM
If these determinations are made final, under the provisions of EPA's PM
If EPA subsequently determines that these Areas are in violation of the 2006 24-hour PM
These proposed clean data determinations that the air quality data shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM
The 2006 PM
EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50 and recorded in EPA's AQS database for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster PM
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in accordance with appendix N, the 24-hour primary and secondary PM
EPA is proposing to determine that the Areas have clean data for the 2006 24-hour PM
This action proposes to make attainment determinations based on air quality data and would not, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and would not impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rulemaking that the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown, Johnstown, and Lancaster PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
EPA is extending the comment period for a proposed rule published December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579). On December 22, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the State of Illinois' request to redesignate the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL nonattainment area (Jersey, Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties) to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In conjunction with the proposed approval of the redesignation request, EPA proposed to approve, as a revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan, the State's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2025 in the area. EPA also proposed to approve the 2002 emissions inventory as meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of the Clean Air Act for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the State's 2008 and 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area. In response to a December 22, 2011, request from David C. Bender, EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days.
Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule published December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79579) is being extended for 30 days to February 22, 2012.
Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0523, to: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6960,
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on our August 2, 2011, proposed endangered status and designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail
We will consider comments received on or before February 21, 2012. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Wally “J” Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113, by telephone ((505) 346-2525), or by facsimile ((505) 346-2542). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.
We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed listing as endangered and our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail that was published in the
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The distribution of the Chupadera springsnail;
(b) The amount and distribution of Chupadera springnail habitat; and
(c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we should include in the designation and why; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
(5) The projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the Chupadera springsnail and on the critical habitat we are proposing.
(6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is complete and accurate.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation of critical habitat, as discussed in the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment, and how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (76 FR 46218) during the initial comment period from August 2, 2011, to October 3, 2011, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination. Our final determination concerning revised critical habitat will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during both comment periods. On the basis of public comments, we may, during the development of our final determination, find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, or draft environmental assessment by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment, will be available for public inspection on
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail in this document. For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Chupadera springsnail, refer to the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat published in the
On August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46218), we published a proposed rule to list as endangered and designate critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail. We proposed to designate approximately 1.9 acres (ac) (0.7 hectares (ha)) in two units located in Socorro County, New Mexico, as critical habitat. That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 3, 2011. We received no request for a public hearing; therefore, no public hearing will be held.
Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of the Chupadera springsnail, the benefits of critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Chupadera springsnail and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Chupadera springsnail due to protection from adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final designation, including information obtained during the comment period and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which are available for review and comment (see
The purpose of the draft economic analysis is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Chupadera springsnail. The draft economic analysis describes the economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the Chupadera springsnail; some of these costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat. The economic impact of the proposed critical habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both “with critical habitat” and “without critical habitat.” The “without critical habitat” scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. The “with critical habitat” scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we may consider in the final designation of critical habitat when evaluating the benefits of excluding particular areas under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The analysis looks at baseline impacts incurred from the listing of the species and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur if we finalize the proposed critical habitat designation. For a further description of the methodology of the analysis, see “Framework for the Analysis,” of the draft economic analysis.
The draft economic analysis provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the Chupadera springsnail. It identifies potential incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over and above those baseline costs attributed to listing. The draft economic analysis quantifies economic impacts of Chupadera springsnail conservation efforts associated with residential development and ranch activities.
Existing and planned subdivision development in the area can lead to groundwater depletion, threatening the springsnail and its habitat by reducing water flow at the spring that supports the species. Residential activities can also lead to modification of the area around the springhead and springbrook, causing habitat degradation through inundation and changes in water flow and chemistry. However, a Federal nexus consultation under section 7 of the Act is unlikely to exist, as each parcel will have its own groundwater well, which is regulated by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer with no Federal involvement. Unit 1 is not slated for development; therefore, it is unlikely the landowners will apply for a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. We are unaware of the plans for Unit 2, but we believe that any development would avoid the spring and therefore avoid the need for a section 404 permit. Because there are no foreseeable activities with a Federal nexus, the draft economic analysis found no economic impact of the proposed designation of critical habitat beyond a possible “stigma effect” to land values. This stigma effect arises from the perception of landowners that designation of critical habitat may impede future land development and, therefore, depress land values. Our economic analysis was unable to quantify the economic value of any possible stigma effects.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the public on the draft economic analysis, draft environmental assessment, and all aspects of the proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
The purpose of an environmental assessment is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the Chupadera springsnail in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The draft environmental assessment found the preferred alternative of designating critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail at the two proposed locations would not have significant impacts to the human environment.
In our August 2, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 46218), we indicated that we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes and executive orders until the information concerning potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on landowners and stakeholders became available in the draft economic analysis. We have now made use of the draft economic analysis data to make these determinations. In this document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities, such as residential development and ranch activities. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the Chupadera springsnail is present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process.
In the draft economic analysis, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chupadera springsnail. Information in the draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment indicates the proposed critical habitat designation will have no effect on any small entities. Please refer to the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have identified no small entity that may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation. For the above reasons and based on currently available information, we certify that, if promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to Oregon State University of Corvallis, Oregon, an exclusive license to the variety of blackberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 12/660,189, “Blackberry Plant Named `Onyx',” filed on February 22, 2010 and to the variety of red raspberry described in U.S. Plant Patent Application Serial No. 13/199,578, “Red Raspberry Plant Named `Vintage',” filed on September 2, 2011.
Comments must be received on or before February 21, 2012.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: (301) 504-5989.
The Federal Government's rights in these plant varieties are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Lake Tahoe Federal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on February 9, 2012 at the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449. This Committee, established by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and other matters raised by the Secretary.
The meeting will be held February 9, 2012, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 12 p.m.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449.
Arla Hains, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2773.
Items to be covered on the agenda: (1) Review and confirm the LTFAC Vision and Strategic Planning Session outcomes, and (2) public comment.
All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA).
This NOFA announces the acceptance of applications under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) for Fiscal Year 2012 for financial assistance as follows: grants, guaranteed loans, and combined grants and guaranteed loans for the development and construction of renewable energy systems and for energy efficiency improvement projects; grants for conducting energy audits; grants for conducting renewable energy development assistance; and grants for conducting renewable energy system feasibility studies. The Notice also announces the availability of $25.4 million of Fiscal Year 2012 budget authority to fund these REAP activities, which will support at least $12.5 million in grant program level and up to approximately $48.5 million in guaranteed loan program level.
In order to be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds, complete applications under this Notice must be received by the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. local time of the dates as follows:
For renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement grant applications and combination grant and guaranteed loan applications: March 30, 2012.
For renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement guaranteed loan only applications: On a continuous basis up to June 29, 2012.
For renewable energy system feasibility study applications: March 30, 2012.
For energy audits and renewable energy development assistance applications: February 21, 2012.
See the
For information about this Notice, please contact Mr. Kelley Oehler, Branch Chief, USDA Rural Development, Energy Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 720-6819. Email:
For further information on this program, please contact the applicable USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator for your respective State, as provided in the
Submit electronic grant only applications at
Telephone numbers listed are not toll-free.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement grants and guaranteed loans, as covered in this Notice, has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0050. The information collection requirements associated with energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants and with renewable energy feasibility study grants have also been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0570-0059 and OMB Control Number 0570-0061, respectively.
For all applications submitted under this Notice, complete applications must be received by the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. local time of the applicable application deadline date in order to be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds. Any application received after its applicable date and time, regardless of the postmark on the application, will not be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds.
A.
B.
C.
A.
The amount of grant funds available for renewable energy system feasibility studies in Fiscal Year 2012 will be $500,000. The balance of the funds unused for the feasibility study grants may be utilized in any of the renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement National competitions.
The amount of funds available for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance in Fiscal Year 2012 will be $880,000. Obligations of these funds will take place through March 31, 2012. Any unobligated balances will be moved to the renewable energy subsidy account as of April 1, 2012. These funds may be utilized in any of the renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement National competitions. In order to ensure that small projects have a fair opportunity to compete for the funding and are consistent with the priorities set forth in the statute, the Agency will set-aside approximately $5 million to fund grants of $20,000 or less. Obligations of these funds will take place through June 30, 2012. Any unobligated balances will be moved to the renewable energy subsidy account as of July 1, 2012. These funds may be utilized in any of the renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement National competitions.
B.
C.
D.
E.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(a) Be registered in the CCR prior to submitting an application or plan;
(b) Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by the Agency; and
(c) Provide its DUNS number in each application or plan it submits to the Agency.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
A.
For the purpose of this Notice, and in addition to meeting the small business size determination as defined under small business in 7 CFR 4280.103, rural small business applicants must demonstrate that the majority (i.e. 51 percent or more) of their past 3 years' annual receipts from their business operation are derived from a rural area. If the rural small business applicant has not engaged in business operations for the past 3 years, than information for as long as the rural small business applicant has been in business must be submitted. To ensure that there is sufficient information for the Agency to make this determination; rural small business applicants, as part of their application requirements in 7 CFR 4280.116 (b)(v)(A), should list the physical address, total annual receipts and number of employees for each urban or rural location. The Agency will make this determination for rural small business applicants that do not have any annual receipts (new businesses only) on the location of the rural small business applicant.
B.
C.
Applicants seeking to participate in this program must submit applications in accordance with this Notice and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart B, as applicable. Applicants must submit complete applications containing all parts necessary for the Agency to determine applicant and project eligibility, to score the application, and to conduct the technical evaluation, as applicable in order to be considered.
Applicants may obtain applications from any USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator, as provided in the
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site. To use
Complete applications submitted under this Notice must be received by the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. local time on the applicable date as identified in the
All renewable energy system, energy efficiency improvement, and renewable energy system feasibility study applications are to be submitted to the USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant's proposed project is located. All energy audit and renewable energy development assistance applications are to be submitted to the USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator in the State in which the applicant is headquartered. A list of USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinators is provided in the
Applicants may submit their applications either as hard copy or electronically as specified in the following paragraphs. When submitting an application as hard copy, applicants must submit one original.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1)
Applicants may only submit one renewable energy system feasibility study grant for Fiscal Year 2012 funds.
Applicants may only submit one energy audit grant application and one renewable energy development
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
This section of the Notice identifies the provisions of 7 CFR 4280, subpart B applicable to each type of funding available under REAP.
The provisions specified in 7 CFR 4280.101 through 4280.111 apply to this Notice.
In addition to the other provisions of this Notice, the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.112 through 4280.121 apply to renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement projects grants.
In addition to the other provisions of this Notice, the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.122 through 4280.160 apply to guaranteed loans for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement projects. For Fiscal Year 2012, the guarantee fee amount is 1 percent of the guaranteed portion of the loan and the annual renewal fee is 0.250 percent (one-quarter of 1 percent) of the guaranteed portion of the loan.
In addition to the other provisions of this Notice, the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.165 apply to a combined grant and guaranteed loan for renewable energy system and energy efficiency improvement projects.
In addition to the other provisions of this Notice, the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.170 through 4280.182 apply to renewable energy system feasibility study grants.
In addition to the other provisions of this Notice, the requirements specified in 7 CFR 4280.186 through 4820.196 apply to energy audit and renewable energy development assistance grants.
If an applicant submitted an application for funding in Fiscal Year 2011 and that application was determined eligible but was not funded, the Agency will consider that Fiscal Year 2011 application for funding in Fiscal Year 2012 as provided in this section.
(1)
(i) For a guarantee loan and grant combination application, both the lender and grant applicant must submit the written request to the Agency in order to be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds.
(ii) Except for simplified applications, applicants must provide current financial statements that meet the program requirements outlined in 7 CFR 4280.116(b)(4) with the written request.
(iii) Written requests to consider Fiscal Year 2011 applications for Fiscal Year 2012 funds may be submitted at any time during Fiscal Year 2012, up to and including 4:30 p.m. local time on March 30, 2012, to be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds. Written requests received after this time and date will not be accepted by the Agency and the applicant's Fiscal Year 2011 application will not be considered for Fiscal Year 2012 funds.
(2)
(3)
In addition to the process for awarding funding under 7 CFR 4280, subpart B, the Agency will make awards using the following considerations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For hybrid applications, each technical report will be evaluated and scored based on its own merit. The scores for the technologies will be consolidated using a weighted average approach based on the percentage of the cost for each system to the total eligible project cost.
A hybrid project contains a wind and solar photovoltaic components. The wind system will cost $30,000 (75 percent of total eligible project cost) and the solar will cost $10,000 (25 percent of total eligible project cost). The wind technical report was evaluated and assigned a total score of 22 points, while the solar report was evaluated and assigned a total score of 31 points. In this scenario, the final technical score would be assigned as follows: (22 × 75 percent) + (31 × 25 percent) = 24.25.
(4)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
For assistance on this program, please contact a USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator, as provided in the
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication and Compliance, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of public meetings.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) will hold meetings for stakeholders focusing on Rural Development's Rural Energy for America Program implemented under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) during the first quarter of calendar year 2012. These meetings will be hosted by Rural Development State Directors. Stakeholders must contact the appropriate Rural Development State Office in order to participate.
The stakeholder meetings will be held during the first quarter of calendar year 2012. Please contact the Rural Development State Office for your State, as identified in the
RBS intends to hold the stakeholder meetings at Rural Development's State Offices. To confirm the location of the meeting for your State, please contact the applicable USDA Rural Development Energy Coordinator for your State. These Energy Coordinators are listed below.
Telephone numbers listed are not toll-free.
Marcia Johnson, USDA Rural Development, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683, (334) 279-3453,
Chad Stovall, USDA Rural Development, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645-6539, (907) 761-7718,
Gary Mack, USDA Rural Development, 230 North First Avenue, Suite 206, Phoenix, AZ 85003-1706, (602) 280-8717,
Laura Tucker, USDA Rural Development, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225, (501) 301-3280,
Philip Brown, USDA Rural Development, 430 G Street, #4169, Davis, CA 95616, (530) 792-5811,
Janice Pond, USDA Rural Development, Denver Federal Center, Building 56, Room 2300, P.O. Box 25426, Denver, CO 80225-0426, (720) 544-2907,
Bruce Weaver, USDA Rural Development, 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200, Dover, DE 19904, (302) 857-3629,
Angela Prioleau, USDA Rural Development, 4440 NW. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL 32606, (352) 338-3412,
J. Craig Scroggs, USDA Rural Development, 111 E. Spring St., Suite B, Monroe, GA 30655, Phone (770) 267-1413 ext. 113,
Tim O'Connell, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 933-8313,
Brian Buch, USDA Rural Development, 9173 W. Barnes Drive, Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709, (208) 378-5623,
Mary Warren, USDA Rural Development, 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, (217) 403-6218,
Jerry Hay, USDA Rural Development, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278, (812) 346-3411, Ext. 126,
Kate Sand, USDA Rural Development, 909 E. 2nd Avenue, Suite C, Indianola, IA 50125, (515) 961-5365 Ext. 130,
David Kramer, USDA Rural Development, 1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604-4040, (785) 271-2730,
Scott Maas, USDA Rural Development, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503, (859) 224-7435,
Kevin Boone, USDA Rural Development, 905 Jefferson Street, Suite 320, Lafayette, LA 70501, (337) 262-6601, Ext. 133,
Beverly Stone, USDA Rural Development, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, P.O. Box 405, Bangor, ME 04402-0405, (207) 990-9125,
Charles W. Dubuc, USDA Rural Development, 60 Quaker Lane, Suite 44, Warwick, RI 02886, (401) 822-8867,
Rick Vanderbeek, USDA Rural Development, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 324-5157,
Ron Oman, USDA Rural Development, 375 Jackson St., Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101, (651) 602-7796,
G. Gary Jones, USDA Rural Development, 100 W. Capital Street, Suite 831, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965-5457,
Matt Moore, USDA Rural Development, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876-9321,
John Guthmiller, USDA Rural Development, 2229 Boot Hill Court, P.O. Box 850, Bozeman, MT 59771, (406) 585-2540,
Debra Yocum, USDA Rural Development, 100 Centennial Mall North, Room 152, Federal Building, Lincoln, NE 68508, (402) 437-5554,
Mark Williams, USDA Rural Development, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703, (775) 887-1222,
Victoria Fekete, USDA Rural Development, 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 500N, Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054, (856) 787-7752,
Jesse Bopp, USDA Rural Development, 6200 Jefferson Street NE., Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109, (505) 761-4952,
Scott Collins, USDA Rural Development, 9025 River Road, Marcy, NY 13403, (315) 736-3316 Ext. 127,
David Thigpen, USDA Rural Development, 4405 Bland Rd., Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609, (919) 873-2065,
Dennis Rodin, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser Avenue, P.O. Box 1737, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737, (701) 530-2068,
Randy Monhemius, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215-2418, (614) 255-2424,
Jody Harris, USDA Rural Development, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074-2654, (405) 742-1036,
Don Hollis, USDA Rural Development, 200 SE Hailey Ave., Suite 105, Pendleton, OR 97801, (541) 278-8049, Ext. 129,
Amanda Krugh, USDA Rural Development, 1 Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996, Phone: (717) 237-2289,
Luis Garcia, USDA Rural Development, IBM Building, 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 601, Hato Rey, PR
Shannon Legree, USDA Rural Development, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 253-3150,
Kenneth Lynch, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 4th Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350, (605) 352-1120,
Will Dodson, USDA Rural Development, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084, (615) 783-1350,
Billy Curb, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main Street, Temple, TX 76501, (254) 742-9775,
Roger Koon, USDA Rural Development, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, (801) 524-4301,
Cheryl Ducharme, USDA Rural Development, 89 Main Street, 3rd Floor, Montpelier, VT 05602, (802) 828-6083,
Laurette Tucker, USDA Rural Development, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 238, Richmond, VA 23229, (434) 392-4906 Ext. 125, (804) 287-1606,
Mary Traxler, USDA Rural Development, 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512, (360) 704-7762,
Lisa Sharp, USDA Rural Development, 1550 Earl Core Road, Suite 101, Morgantown, WV 26505-7500, (304) 284-4871,
Brenda Heinen, USDA Rural Development, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481, (715) 345-7615, Ext. 139,
Jon Crabtree, USDA Rural Development, Dick Cheney Federal Building, 100 East B Street, Room 1005, P.O. Box 11005, Casper, WY 82602, (307) 233-6719,
Justin Hatmaker, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 3201, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3201, Telephone: (202) 720-1599. Email:
The energy programs implemented under the 2008 Farm Bill continue to be a priority of the Secretary of Agriculture, the Undersecretary of Rural Development, and the Administrator of Rural Business-Cooperative Service. Over the past three plus years, we have developed reliable, successful energy programs and are looking to continue our success as we move forward. Our energy programs are making significant beneficial impacts on both rural communities and the business owners and agricultural producers that receive assistance under these programs. Benefits of our energy programs include decreasing the energy footprint of rural communities, businesses, and farms; converting renewable resources into clean energy; and creating and saving jobs.
In recognition of current budget conditions and as we approach the time for developing the next Farm Bill, we are calling together stakeholders in order for Rural Development to provide updates on the Rural Energy for America Program; to discuss ways we can leverage Agency resources, including working with private and public partners and emphasizing guaranteed loans; and to re-iterate our commitment to helping meet the President's energy independence goals. We encourage state energy partners; businesses that have used or may be looking to use our energy programs; lenders; local, state, and federal elected officials and government offices; and grant writers to participate.
Please note that, due to space limitations, participation in each stakeholder meeting will be limited and will be based on a “first-come, first-served” basis. Therefore, we encourage you to contact, as soon as possible, the Rural Development Energy Coordinator for your state, as identified in the
Lastly, please be advised that, if you participate in one of these meetings, you are responsible for your own transportation and any other costs (
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 success of fisheries management programs depends significantly on regulatory compliance. The requirements that fishing gear be marked are essential to facilitate enforcement. The ability to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator is crucial to the enforcement of regulations issued under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The marking of fishing gear is also valuable in actions concerning damage, loss, and civil proceedings. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.219 and 660.319 specify fishing gear must be marked with the vessel's official number, federal permit or tag number, or some other specified form of identification. The regulations further specify how the gear is to be marked
Revised individual fishing quota (IFQ) trawl fishery regulations at 50 CFR 660.140, per Final Rule 0648-AY68 (75 FR 78344) allow trawl allocation to be harvested with fixed gears. Thus, 20 of the limited entry vessels in this collection would have up to a total of 400 additional pieces of gear to mark, adding 100 hours and $100.
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
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Genesee Gateway Local Development Corporation, the proposed grantee of a new foreign-trade zone planned for Genesee County, New York (see Docket 69-2011, 76 FR 67672, 11-2-2011), requesting manufacturing authority on behalf of Liberty Pumps, Inc., located in Bergen, New York. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on January 12, 2012.
The Liberty Pumps, Inc., facility (108 employees, 9.1 acres, production capacity—300,000 pumps/year) is located at 7000 Appletree Avenue in Bergen (Genesee County), within Site 1 of the proposed new zone. The facility is used for the manufacturing of submersible and water pumps, including drain pumps, effluent pumps, condensate pumps, and sewage pumps. Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 30 to 40% of the value of the finished pumps) include: Plastic (polyamide) resins, plastic boxes/cases/tanks, articles of plastic, rubber gaskets/seals, labels, wood pallets, fiberglass, fasteners, cast iron parts, articles of iron/steel, aluminum castings, parts of pumps, valves, mechanical seals, electric motors, transformers, capacitors, switches, electronic components, integrated circuits, process controllers, printed circuit assemblies, electrical components, and measuring instruments (duty rates range from free to 10.7%).
FTZ procedures could exempt Liberty Pumps from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. The company anticipates that 12 to 18 percent of the facility's shipments will be exported. On its domestic sales, Liberty Pumps would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to submersible and water pumps (duty rate—free) for the foreign inputs noted above. FTZ designation would further allow Liberty Pumps to realize logistical benefits through the use of weekly customs entry procedures. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment. Liberty Pumps would also be exempt from duty payments on foreign inputs that become scrap during the production process. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Pierre Duy 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 20, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 4, 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
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the Greater Yuma Economic Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 219, requesting authority to reorganize and expand 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
FTZ 219 was approved by the Board on April 2, 1997 (Board Order 874, 62 FR 17850-17851, 04/10/1997) and expanded on April 5, 2001 (Board Order 1161, 66 FR 19422, 04/16/2001); February 7, 2003 (Board Order 1267, 68 FR 9047, 02/27/2003); and, June 25, 2004 (Board Order 1341, 69 FR 40600, 07/06/2004).
The current zone project includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be all of Yuma County, Arizona, 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 and adjacent to the San Luis U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize and expand its existing zone project to include existing Sites 1 and 2 as “magnet” sites as well as requesting approval of an additional “magnet” site: Proposed
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp 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 20, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 4, 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
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478.
On January 3, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its opportunity to request administrative review of the antidumping duty order on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (“PC Strand”) from Thailand.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is extending the time limit for the preliminary results of the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (“shrimp”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) to February 28, 2012. The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
Toni Dach or Seth Isenberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1655 and (202) 482-0588, respectively.
On March 31, 2011, the Department published in the
In antidumping duty administrative reviews, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this administrative review within the original time limit because the Department requires additional time to analyze the questionnaire responses, which include substantial sales and factor information, issue supplemental questionnaires, evaluate surrogate value submissions, and conduct an on-site verification.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 30 days, until February 28, 2012. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with respect to Dongguan Nozawa Plastics Products Co., Ltd., and United Power Packaging, Ltd. (collectively Nozawa). The period of review is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. The Department is rescinding the administrative review.
Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5760.
On August 9, 2004, we published in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” We received a letter of withdrawal from the petitioners with respect to the review requested of Nozawa within the 90-day time limit.
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). If granted, the EFP would authorize the applicant to collect and retain red snapper that would otherwise be prohibited from possession and retention. This study, to be conducted in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) off Louisiana, is intended to better document the age structure and life history of fish associated with offshore platforms and artificial reefs in Louisiana coastal waters.
Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on February 21, 2012.
You may submit comments on the application by any of the following methods:
•
•
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.
Steve Branstetter, (727) 824-5305; email:
The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The described research is part of a new research program by LDWF. The research is intended to involve recreational fishermen in the collection of fundamental biological information on Gulf red snapper. The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that could otherwise be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to reef fish managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The applicant requires authorization through the EFP to collect these Council-managed species that may be taken as part of the normal fishing activities of the recreational sector of the Gulf reef fish fishery. LDWF is requesting that selected participants in as many as seven Louisiana recreational fishing tournaments during the summer of 2012 be allowed to bring red snapper to port. The EFP would only be applicable if the 2012 recreational red snapper season has closed because the recreational quota was projected to be met. These fish would be turned over to LDWF personnel, and sampled for otoliths and gonads. LDWF would be responsible for providing all data collected under the EFP to NMFS for use in the next red snapper stock assessment.
The goal of the research is to provide a more robust data base on Gulf red snapper for the next stock assessment. The EFP, if approved, would authorize the take of as many as 1,400 federally-managed red snapper from July 1, 2012, through September 30, 2012. Such fish, collected as biological samples, would not be subject to seasonal closures or recreational bag limits.
NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization. A report on the research would be due at the end of the collection period, to be submitted to NMFS and reviewed by the Council.
A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS's review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected states, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 29 pre-workshop webinar for HMS blacktip sharks.
The SEDAR assessment of the HMS stocks of Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks will consist of one workshop and a series of webinars. See
The SEDAR pre-Workshop webinar will take place February 14, 2012 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Central time. The established time may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (See
Julie Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks,
During the SEDAR 29 pre-data workshop webinar participants will present summary data, and discuss data needs and treatments.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council) Tilefish Advisory Panel (AP) will meet with the Council's Social and Economic Sub-committee of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).
The meeting will be held on February 7, 2012 at 11 a.m. until 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Ocean Place Resort, One Ocean Blvd., Long Branch NJ 07740; telephone: (732) 571-4000.
Christopher M. Moore Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is to review fishery performance and create an AP Fishery Performance Report for Tilefish.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Golden King Crab Price Formula Workgroup.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Golden King Crab Price Formula Workgroup is meeting in February in Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held on February 7, 2012 at 2 p.m.
The meeting will be held at 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98121-3099.
Mark Fina, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Committee is meeting concerning the arbitration system that is part of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program. The committee will give specific attention to the development of the price formula for golden king crab under the arbitration system. Additional information is posted on the Council Web site:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email
On 11/14/2011 (76 FR 70423-70424) and 11/18/2011 (76 FR 71554), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. Chapter 85 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:
The White House Council for Community Solutions gives notice of the following meeting:
Friday, February 3, 2012, 12:15-1:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
The Council will meet via phone conference call. The meeting will be open to the public in Listen-Only mode and it will be recorded. To dial in, please call (866) 525-0652. More details and materials will be available on the Council's Web site (
The public is invited to submit publicly available comments through the Council's Web site. To send statements to the Council, please send written statements to the Council's electronic mailbox at
Open.
Following the Administration's Summer Jobs Plus announcement on January 4, the Council launched a 100-day initiative to unite all citizens to go “All In” for youth. The purpose of this meeting is to review the Council's efforts to-date and plan next steps for continuing to raise awareness about the need to address the issue of disconnected youth.
Leslie Boissiere, Executive Director, White House Council for Community Solutions, Corporation for National and Community Service, 10th Floor, Room 10911, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525. Phone: (202) 606-3910. Fax: (202) 606-3464. Email:
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of closed meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 10 a.m.
1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia, 22209.
Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials
However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of closed meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 10 a.m.
1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.
Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.
However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-725F, “Mandatory Reliability Standards for Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination”, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by February 21, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0249, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-1-000, by either of the following methods:
Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail at
On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.
On November 19, 2007, NERC filed its petition for Commission approval of the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability Standard, designated NUC-001-1. In Order No. 716, issued October 16, 2008, the Commission approved the standard while also directing certain
The purpose of Reliability Standard NUC-001-2 is to require “coordination between nuclear plant generator operators and transmission entities for the purpose of ensuring nuclear plant safe operation and shutdown.”
Reliability Standard NUC-001-2 requires a nuclear power plant operator and its suppliers of back-up power and related transmission and distribution services to coordinate concerning nuclear licensing requirements for safe nuclear plant operation and shutdown and system operating limits. Information collection requirements include establishing and maintaining interface agreements, including record retention requirements.
The Commission
• 58,400 Reporting hours × $120/hour
• 5,840 Recordkeeping hours × $28/hour
Total annual cost burden to respondents = $7,173,701.
Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Take notice that on January 4, 2012, Liberty Energy (Midstates) Corp. (Liberty Midstates), 2845 Bristol Circle, Oakville, Ontario, Canada L6H 7H7, filed in Docket No. CP12-41-000, an application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting the determination of a service area
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to William F. Demarest, Jr., Husch Blackwell LLP, 750 17th St. NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006, or at (202) 378-2310 (telephone) or email:
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 commenters 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 commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters 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.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
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.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 4.32(b)(7), if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n.
The proposed project is currently unlicensed and was found to be jurisdictional because it is located on a Commerce Clause water and affects the interests of interstate commerce. See, 103 FERC ¶ 62,180 (2003).
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
q.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
On December 15, 2011, the Commission issued notice that Office of Energy Projects staff will hold a site visit and technical meeting on January 18, 2012. The meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter and all oral comments made at the meeting will be included in the public record. Any written comments should be filed by February 17, 2012, and any reply comments must be filed by March 5, 2012. If you have questions about filing comments, please contact Steve Kartalia at (202) 502-6131, or via email at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental affects of the Caledonia Delta Pressure—DP33 Project (Project) proposed by Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. (Caledonia) in Lowndes County, Mississippi. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 13, 2012.
You may submit comments in written form. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this Project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed Project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
Caledonia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (
The Project involves the modification of the Caledonia Storage Facility by upgrading the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) from 2700 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 3300 psig and to add sufficient compression to increase injection and withdrawal capacity. This would involve construction of the following principal facilities at the Caledonia Storage Facility:
• Approximately 0.84 mile of 16-inch-diameter high pressure injection pipeline connecting the existing gas storage field wells on well pads A, B and C to the existing plant facilities;
• Installation of two additional natural gas-driven reciprocating compressor units added to the existing compression system; and
• Addition of separators, gas piping, modified or replacement well heads, a gas-driven backup generator, and electrical and instrumentation equipment to accommodate the increase in operating pressure.
In addition, the Project involves changes to the measurement, and flow control equipment and replacement of filter separation at Caledonia's interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline to accommodate the increased flow rate during injection and withdrawal.
The general location of the Project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.
Construction of the Project would impact a total of approximately 48.6 acres, including lands affected for the pipeline construction, construction of well pads and tie-ins, aboveground facility sites, and temporary workspaces. All of the construction acreage within the compressor station, interconnect meter station, well pads, as well as the pipeline right-of-way was previously disturbed during installation of the original Caledonia facility in 2007. The only new permanent right-of-way that would be required for the Project is 0.13 acres associated with the tie-in at Well Pad A. The remaining 48.5 acres would be temporarily affected by construction activities and then returned to the previous land use.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss environmental affects that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed Project, under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use and recreation;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary (FERC's records information system, see the Additional Information section of this Notice). To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. Comments on the EA will be considered before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the Mississippi State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before February 13, 2012.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the Project docket number (CP12-33-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Indian tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed Project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor”, which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project, located at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation's Gibson dam on the Sun River in Lewis and Clark and Teton Counties, Montana, and has prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The project would occupy a total of 68.5 acres of federal lands.
The final EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, contact Matt Cutlip at (503) 552-2762 or
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Elba BOG Compressor Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Southern LNG Company, L.L.C. (SLNG) in Chatham County, Georgia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on February 13, 2012.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
SLNG proposes to construct and operate additional boil-off gas (BOG) compression facilities at its liquefied natural gas (LNG) marine terminal on Elba Island in Chatham County, Georgia (Terminal). The Elba BOG Compressor Project would supplement the existing 1,500 horsepower BOG compressor and is expected to operate any time the overall plant vaporization rate is below approximately 120 million cubic feet per day. The additional compression would increase the Terminal's capability to compress a total of 21 million cubic feet per day of BOG generated within its storage tanks without the need to re-gasify additional LNG. The project would not increase the LNG sendout or storage of the Terminal. The Elba BOG Compressor Project would consist of the following facilities:
• 2,500 horsepower electric-motor driven reciprocating gas compressor;
• flow metering modifications;
• underground discharge piping tie-in to the existing 30-inch-diameter sendout pipeline;
• approximately 200 feet of 4-inch-diameter suction/discharge pipe;
• approximately 420 feet of aboveground 10-inch-diameter piping;
• electrical modifications in the existing compressor building; and
• valving modifications.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
The project would be located entirely within SLNG's existing Terminal. All work would be performed within an approximately 21-acre portion of the existing Terminal boundaries, near the existing K-5 compressor at the Terminal. The majority of the project land requirements would be temporary use areas associated with fabrication, parking, and staging areas, which have been previously disturbed. Existing access roads would be used for construction and operations activities. At completion, approximately 0.05 acre of additional land within the Terminal
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils;
• Land use;
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
• Cultural resources;
• Vegetation and wildlife;
• Air quality and noise;
• Endangered and threatened species; and
• Public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before February 13, 2012.
For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket number (CP12-31-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 380 (Order No. 486, 52
The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed modifications to the project and the addition of new generating capacity and the conclusion that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The EA also may be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
For further information, contact Steven Sachs by telephone at (202) 502-8666 or by email at
On January 3, 2012, see Table below, all wholly-owned subsidiaries of North American Hydro Holdings, Inc. filed an application to transfer the licenses for the following projects:
Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for the above projects from the transferors to the transferees.
Applicants' Contact: Transferors and Transferees: Mr. Charles F. Alsberg, Chief Executive Officer, North American Hydro Holdings, Inc., 116 State Street, Neshkoro, WI 54960, (920) 293-4628, Ext. 11 and Mr. Donald H. Clarke, Esq., Law Offices of GKRSE, 1500 K Street NW., Suite 330, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 408-5400.
Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene:
Take notice that on December 30, 2011, pursuant to section 219 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824s, Order No. 679, and 207 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 (2011), PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting that the Commission find that PPL Electric is entitled to an integrated and tailored incentive rate package that includes: (1) A 100 basis point incentive adder to PPL Electric's base return on equity; and (2) authorization for 100 percent prudently incurred construction work in progress (CWIP) to be included in rate base, subject to the use of appropriate accounting methodologies to prevent double recovery.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On January 3, 2012, Longview Energy Exchange, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Longview Pumped Storage Project (project) to be located Ash Fork City, Yavapai County, Arizona. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Two upper reservoirs constructed of rock fill each with a dam drainage system; (2) a single lower reservoir dam constructed of earth fill materials with an internal dam drainage system; (3) concrete inlet-outlet structures at both upper reservoirs equipped with trash racks; (4) water conductors constructed of concrete-lined pressure tunnels; (5) three 12.5-foot-diameter penstocks serving the pump-turbine units associated with both upper reservoirs; (6) surge control facilities; (7) a 500-foot-long by 100-foot-wide and 150-foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse containing 6 units; (8) a switchyard to be located near the powerhouse; (9) a 38-mile-long, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from the project to an interconnection with the existing Arizona Public Service owned and operated Eldorado-Moenkopi 500-kV line; (10) a 27-mile-long, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line extending from the project to an interconnection with an existing Western Area Power Administration owned and operated 230-kV (to be upgraded to 500-kV); and (11) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Longview Pumped Storage Project would be 35,040 gigawatt-hours.
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding.
The Commission staff is consulting with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, California SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the California SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the Yuba River Project would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with certain parties listed below. The executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
Yuba County Water Agency, as licensee for the Yuba River Project No. 2246, and the United Indian Auburn Indian Community, Nevada City Rancheria, Strawberry Valley Rancheria, Enterprise Rancheria, Mooretown Rancheria, Greenville Rancheria,
For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as follows:
Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day period.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP):
SPP Strategic Planning Committee Task Force on Order No. 1000 Meeting, January 18, 2012, 3:30-6:30 p.m., Local Time.
SPP Strategic Planning Committee Meeting, January 19, 2012, 8 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
The above-referenced meetings will be held at:
Intercontinental Stephen F. Austin, 701 Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78701.
The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6210 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been initiated by the Commission:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
j.
k.
On November 3, 2011, the Commission directed the exemptee to file a plan and schedule for restoring operation to the project or surrendering the exemption. The Commission also informed the exemptee that it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the exemption. The Commission required the exemptee to show cause within 30 days why the exemption should not be revoked. A response was not filed by the exemptee. To date, the information requested from the exemptee has not been filed and the project remains inoperative.
l. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
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. Agency Comments—Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described proceeding. If any agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 20, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0232, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0232, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for EPA's regulations listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 21, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0625, to (1) EPA online using
Melissa Kaps, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-6787; fax number: (703) 308-0514; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 9, 2011 (76
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0625, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
40 CFR parts 260 and 261 contain provisions that allow regulated entities to apply for petitions, variances, exclusions, and exemptions from various RCRA requirements.
Under 40 CFR 260.20(b), all rulemaking petitioners must submit basic information with their demonstrations, including name, address, and statement of interest in the proposed action. Under § 260.21, all petitioners for equivalent testing or analytical methods must include specific information in their petitions and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the proposed method is equal to, or superior to, the corresponding method in terms of its sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility. Under § 260.22, petitions to amend part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility (more simply, to delist a waste) must meet extensive informational requirements. When a petition is submitted, the Agency reviews materials, deliberates, publishes its tentative decision in the
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EIS are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
On February 1, 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conditionally granted a waiver requested by the Texas Methanol Corporation (Texas Methanol) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel, pursuant to section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be received on or before February 21, 2012. EPA does not plan to hold a public hearing on this notice, unless one is requested. If requested by February 6, 2012, a public hearing will be held. If such a hearing is held, comments must be received within 90 days after the date of such hearing.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0894, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For information regarding this proposal contact, Joseph R. Sopata, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, (202) 343-9034.
Section 211(f)(1) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”) makes it unlawful for any manufacturer of any fuel or fuel additive to first introduce into commerce, or to increase the concentration in use of, any fuel or fuel additive for use by any person in motor vehicles manufactured after model year 1974, which is not substantially similar to any fuel or fuel additive utilized in the certification of any model year 1975, or subsequent model year, vehicle or engine under section 206 of the Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) last issued an interpretive rule on the phrase “substantially similar” at 73 FR 22281 (April 25, 2008). Generally speaking, this interpretive rule describes the types of unleaded gasoline that are likely to be considered “substantially similar” to the unleaded gasoline utilized in EPA's certification program by placing limits on a gasoline's chemical composition as well as its physical properties, including the amount of alcohols and ethers (oxygenates) that may be added to gasoline. Fuels that are found to be “substantially similar” to EPA's certification fuels may be registered and introduced into commerce. The current “substantially similar” interpretive rule for unleaded gasoline allows oxygen content up to 2.7 weight for certain ethers and alcohols.
Section 211(f)(4) of the Act provides that upon application of any fuel or fuel additive manufacturer, the Administrator may waive the prohibitions of section 211(f)(1) if the Administrator determines that the applicant has established that the fuel or fuel additive, or a specified concentration thereof, will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (over the useful life of the motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle in which such device or system is used) to achieve compliance by the vehicle or engine with the emission standards to which it has been certified pursuant to sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act. The statute requires that the Administrator shall take final action to grant or deny an application after public notice and comment, within 270 days of receipt of the application.
The Texas Methanol Corporation received a waiver under CAA section 211(f)(4) for a gasoline-alcohol fuel blend, known as OCTAMIX,
On October 14, 2011, Baker Hughes requested EPA allow the use of its alternative corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD
One of the major areas of concern to EPA in reviewing any waiver request is the problem of materials compatibility. Materials compatibility data could show a potential failure of fuel systems, emissions related parts and emission control parts from use of the fuel or fuel additive. Any failure could result in greater emissions that would cause or contribute to the engines or vehicles exceeding their emissions standards. Initially, Texas Methanol requested the use of TOLAD MFA-10 or an appropriate concentration of any other corrosion inhibitor such that the fuel will pass the National Association of Corrosion Engineer's TM-01-72 (NACE RUST TEST). However, EPA concluded that compliance with the NACE Rust Test alone was not adequate in determining suitability of a corrosion inhibitor for use under the OCTAMIX
Therefore, pursuant to section 211(f)(4), EPA will examine the data submitted by Baker Hughes, along with all comments received from interested parties, to determine whether use of the corrosion inhibitor, TOLAD
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of settlement.
Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement for past response costs concerning the Constitution Road Drum Superfund Site located in Atlanta, Dekalb County, Georgia.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until February 21, 2012. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V. Painter. Submit your comments by Site name Constitution Road Drum Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
•
•
Paula V. Painter at (404) 562-8887.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 20, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 6, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee.
The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These discussions are likely to involve information concerning individuals associated with the applications, including assessments of their personal qualifications to conduct their proposed projects. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.
1.
2.
3.
5.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of request for measures and domains.
Section 401(a) of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111-3, amended the Social Security Act (the Act) to enact section 1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b-9a). Section 1139A(b) charged the Department of Health and Human Services with improving pediatric health care quality measures. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is soliciting the submission of instruments or domains (for example, key concepts) measuring aspects of families' experience with the quality of inpatient medical and surgical hospital care from all researchers, vendors, hospitals, stakeholders, and other interested parties. The survey development team of Children's Hospital Boston Center of Excellence for Pediatric Quality Measurement (CEPQM), is one of the CHIPRA Pediatric Quality Measures Program (PQMP) Centers of Excellence, which were created pursuant to an interagency agreement between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and AHRQ, and are funded through cooperative agreement awards with AHRQ. AHRQ is interested in instruments and items through which families of pediatric patients assess the care their child receives during the child's inpatient stay. The goal is to develop a standardized instrument for use in the public reporting of family experience of pediatric inpatient care. The CEPQM team is collaborating with the CAHPS 3 Consortium to develop this instrument. The survey will be developed in accordance with CAHPS Survey Design Principles and will develop implementation instructions based on those for CAHPS instruments (
Please submit materials February 21, 2012. AHRQ will not respond to
Electronic submissions are encouraged, preferably as an email with an electronic file in a standard word processing format as an email attachment. Submissions may also be in the form of a letter to: Maushami DeSoto, Ph.D., MHA, Staff Service Fellow, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Rd.,Rockville, MD 20850,
All submissions must include a written statement from the submitter that it will grant AHRQ the necessary rights to use, modify, and adapt the submitted instruments, items, and their documentation for the development of this survey and its dissemination for AHRQ purposes. In accordance with CHIPRA's charge to improve pediatric quality care measures, and consistent with AHRQ's mandate to disseminate research results, 42 U.S.C. 299c-3, AHRQ purposes include public disclosure and dissemination (e.g., on the AHRQ Web site) of AHRQ products and the results of AHRQ-sponsored research and activities. The written statement must be signed by an individual authorized to act for any holder of copyright and/or data rights on each submitted measure or instrument. The authority of the signatory to provide such authorization should be described in the letter. Submitters must attach a proposed license granting all of the above-referenced rights, including the following terms:
• A worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, irrevocable license to AHRQ and those acting on its behalf to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and otherwise use the submitted materials for the development of AHRQ products, including a standardized instrument for use in the public reporting of family experience of pediatric inpatient care; and
• The right of AHRQ and those acting on its behalf to publicly disseminate, in any media (including AHRQ's Web site), any derivative works that AHRQ or those acting on its behalf develops based on the submitted materials.
When submitting instruments, please include, to the extent that it is available:
• Name of the instrument;
• Copies of the full instrument, in all languages available;
• Domains or key concepts included in the instrument;
• Instrument reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, etc) and validity (content, construct, criterion-related);
• Results of cognitive testing;
• Results of field-testing;
• Current use of the instrument (who is using it, what it is being used for, how instrument findings are reported, and by whom the findings are used); and,
• Relevant peer-reviewed journal articles or full citations.
When submitting domains, please include, to the extent available:
• Detailed descriptions of question domain and specific purpose;
• Sample questions, in all languages available; and,
• Relevant peer-reviewed journal articles or full citations.
For all submissions, please also include:
• A brief cover letter summarizing the information requested above for submitted instruments and domains, respectively;
• Complete information about the person submitting the material, including:
(a) Name;
(b) Title;
(c) Organization;
(d) Mailing address;
(e) Telephone number;
(f) Email address; and,
(g) The written statement granting AHRQ the necessary rights to use, modify, and adapt the submitted instruments, items, and their supporting documentation for the development of the survey and its dissemination for AHRQ purposes, as described above.
Maushami DeSoto, Ph.D., MHA.
Section 401(a) of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), public Law 111-3, amended the Social Security Act (the Act) to enact section 1139A (42 U.S.C. 1320b-9a). Since the law was passed, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have been working together to implement selected provisions of the legislation related to children's health care quality. Section 1139A(b) of the Act charged the Department of Health and Human Services with improving pediatric health care quality measures. To implement the law, AHRQ and CMS have established the CHIPRA Pediatric Quality Measures Program (PQMP), which is designed to enhance select pediatric quality measures and develop new measures as needed.
The Children's Hospital Boston Center of Excellence for Pediatric Quality Measurement (CEPQM) is one of seven CHIPRA PQMP Centers of Excellence, which were created pursuant to an interagency agreement between CMS and AHRQ and funded through cooperative agreement awards with AHRQ. CEPQM has been assigned to develop a family experience of pediatric inpatient care measure to be considered as a standardized instrument for publicly reporting pediatric inpatient hospital family experiences voluntarily by State Medicaid and CHIP programs and to be used by providers, consumers, other public and private purchasers, and others. The CEPQM team is collaborating with the CAHPS 3 Consortium to develop this instrument.
Existing instruments or domains submitted should capture the family's experience of hospital or related care (for example, preparation for discharge or care coordination). The survey development team is looking for items for which families of pediatric inpatients are generally the best or only judge; for example, the family can best say if the provider spent sufficient time with them or explained things in ways they could understand. Existing instruments that have been tested should have a high degree of reliability and validity; and evidence of wide use will be helpful.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education
Jennifer Kordonski, (410) 786-1840, or on the Internet at
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice announces a meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel). Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish an advisory panel if the Secretary determines that the panel is “in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed * * * by law.” Such duties are imposed by section 1804 of the Social Security Act (the Act), requiring the Secretary to provide informational materials to Medicare beneficiaries about the Medicare program, and section 1851(d) of the Act, requiring the Secretary to provide for “activities * * * to broadly disseminate information to [M]edicare beneficiaries * * * on the coverage options provided under [Medicare Advantage] in order to promote an active, informed selection among such options.”
The Panel is also authorized by section 1114(f) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a). The Secretary signed the charter establishing this Panel on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) and approved the renewal of the charter on January 21, 2011 (76 FR 11782, March 3, 2011).
Pursuant to the amended charter, the Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concerning optimal strategies for the following:
• Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
• Enhancing the Federal government's effectiveness in informing Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, providers and stakeholders pursuant to education and outreach programs of issues regarding these and other health coverage programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.
• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.
• Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health plan options.
• Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.
• Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under health care reform.
The current members of the Panel are: Samantha Artiga, Principal Policy Analyst, Kaiser Family Foundation; Joseph Baker, President, Medicare Rights Center; Philip Bergquist, Manager, Health Center Operations; CHIPRA Outreach & Enrollment Project and Director, Michigan Primary Care Association, Marjorie Cadogan, Executive Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services; Jonathan Dauphine, Senior Vice President, AARP; Barbara Ferrer, Executive Director, Boston Public Health Commission; Shelby Gonzales, Senior Health Outreach Associate, Center on Budget & Policy Priorities; Jan Henning, Benefits Counseling & Special Projects Coordinator, North Central Texas Council of Governments' Area Agency on Aging; Warren Jones, Executive Director, Mississippi Institute for Improvement of Geographic Minority Health; Cathy Kaufmann, Administrator, Oregon Health Authority; Sandy Markwood, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; Miriam Mobley-Smith, Dean, Chicago State University, College of Pharmacy; Ana Natale-Pereira, Associate Professor of Medicine, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey; Megan Padden, Vice President, Sentara Health Plans; David W. Roberts, Vice-President, Healthcare Information and Management System Society; Julie Bodën Schmidt, Associate Vice President, National Association of Community Health Centers; Alan Spielman, President & Chief Executive Officer, URAC; Winston Wong, Medical Director, Community Benefit Director, Kaiser Permanente; and Darlene Yee-Melichar, Professor & Coordinator, San Francisco State University.
The agenda for the February 7, 2012 meeting will include the following:
• Welcome and Listening Session with CMS Leadership;
• Recap of the Previous (November 17, 2011) Meeting;
• Affordable Care Act Initiatives;
• An opportunity for public comment;
• Meeting Summary, Review of Recommendations and Next Steps;
Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the
Sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).
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 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 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, 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of extension of public comment period.
On November 3, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice and Request for Comments regarding the mechanisms of compliance with United States citizenship requirements for the ownership of vessels eligible to engage in restricted trades by publicly traded companies. In that notice, the public comment period was set to expire on February 1, 2012. In today's action, the Coast Guard is providing notice that the public comment period is extended until April 2, 2012. This extension will provide the public with additional time and opportunity to provide the Coast Guard with information regarding the relevant compliance mechanisms employed by companies with a wide variety of complex organizational structures and trading practices.
Comments and related material must either be submitted to our online docket via
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2011-0619 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Mr. Douglas Cameron, United States Coast Guard, National Vessel Documentation Center; telephone (304) 271-2506; e-mail
We encourage your participation by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
To submit your comment online, go to
On November 3, 2011, the Coast Guard published a Notice and Request for Comments regarding the mechanisms of compliance with United States citizenship requirements for the ownership of vessels eligible to engage in restricted trades by publicly traded companies. In that notice, the public comment period was set to expire on February 1, 2012.
On December 22, 2011, the Coast Guard received a public comment requesting an extension of the comment period due to the complex nature of the information requested in the notice. Specifically, the commenter noted the complexity associated with the compliance mechanisms employed by companies that utilize a wide variety of organizational structures, and the additional complexity of the stock trading industry.
The Coast Guard believes that an extension of the comment period will enable the public to provide more thorough and useful information. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is extending the deadline for public comments on the notice until April 2, 2012.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 1.05-1.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-4051-DR), dated January 6, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 6, 2012, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts resulting from a severe storm and snowstorm during the period of October 29-30, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular employees.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark H. Landry, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, and Worcester Counties for Public Assistance.
Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
All counties within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4029-DR), dated September 9, 2011, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective December 31, 2011.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) corrects the notice published in the
The 18-month extension of the TPS designation of El Salvador is effective March 10, 2012 and will remain in effect through September 9, 2013. The 60-day re-registration period begins January 9, 2012 and will remain in effect through March 12, 2012.
• For further information on TPS, including guidance on the application process and additional information on eligibility, please visit the TPS Web page at
• You can also contact the TPS Operations Program Manager at Status and Family Branch, Service Center Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2060; or by phone at (202) 272-1533 (this is not a toll-free number).
• Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online available at the USCIS Web site at
• Further information will also be available at local USCIS offices upon publication of this Notice.
On January 11, 2012, DHS published a notice in the
DHS is issuing this correction notice to extend the re-registration period through Monday, March 12, 2012. DHS will retain the January 9, 2012 start date for the re-registration period to avoid confusion. DHS will accept re-registration applications submitted from January 9, 2012 through March 12, 2012, provided they meet all filing and fee requirements as stated in the January 11, 2012 notice.
Specifically, DHS replaces the March 9, 2012 date with a new date, March 12, 2012, in the January 11, 2012 notice, within the section titled “
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice; Corrections.
On December 30, 2011, at 76 FR 82317, HUD published a notice announcing HUD's suitable properties. The South Carolina property previously published as Suitable/Available should be corrected to Unsuitable:
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at (800) 927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for unsuitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at (800) 927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
BOEM has prepared a Final Supplemental EIS for CPA Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222, an oil and gas lease sale that is tentatively scheduled for June 2012, which will be the final lease sale in the 2007-2012 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The proposed sale is in the GOM's CPA off the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. This Final Supplemental EIS updates, for CPA Lease Sale 216/222, environmental and socioeconomic analyses that were originally conducted in an EIS that was completed in April 2007 and entitled, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012; Western Planning Area (WPA) Sales 204, 207, 210, 215, and 218; Central Planning Area (CPA) Sales 205, 206, 208, 213, 216, and 222, Final EIS (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-018) (Multisale EIS). This Final Supplemental EIS also updates, for CPA Lease Sale 216/222, environmental and socioeconomic analyses originally conducted in an EIS that was completed in September 2008 and entitled: GOM OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2009-2012; CPA Sales 208, 213, 216, and 222; WPA Sales 210, 215, and 218; Final Supplemental EIS (OCS EIS/EA MMS 2008-041) (2009-2012 Supplemental EIS).
BOEM developed the Final Supplemental EIS for CPA Lease Sale 216/222 in order to consider new circumstances and information arising from, among other things, the
For more information on the Final Supplemental EIS, you may contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (MS 5410), New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, or by email at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and a finding of no significant impact for the environmental assessment for Columbia National Wildlife Refuge (NWR/refuge). In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the next 15 years. Implementation of the CCP is subject to the availability of funding and any additional compliance requirements.
You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and environmental assessment (EA) by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or CD-ROM.
Kelly Chase, Refuge Manager, (509) 488-2668 (phone);
With this notice, we announce the completion of the CCP process for Columbia NWR. We started this process through a notice in the
We announce our CCP decision and the availability of a FONSI for Columbia NWR in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We prepared an analysis of environmental impacts, which we included in the EA that accompanied the draft CCP.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Columbia NWR for the next 15 years. The selected alternative, as described in the final CCP, is a combination of actions from alternatives 2 and 3 in the draft CCP and is the basis for management direction.
The Refuge Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for compatible hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.
We solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for the refuge from July 29, 2011, to August 29, 2011 (76 FR 45600). All letters and comments received were thoroughly evaluated and considered in the selection of a final alternative. The only change to the alternatives in the draft CCP was modifying the overnight closure of Morgan Lake Road to allow for access starting 1
All actions in the selected alternative are subject to available funding and any other compliance requirements. Under the selected alternative, refuge management will continue much as is, consistent with available funding and staffing, except that 175 acres of emergent marsh wetlands in Marsh Unit III will be converted to riparian habitat, with other wetlands to potentially follow based on the success of the first conversion. The Crab Creek channel will be restored, and stream restoration will be a priority to provide for steelhead and redband trout and improve riparian areas for migrating neotropical birds. Specialized habitats (
Public use will be a blend of active and passive. Horseback riding and bicycling will continue, but camping will be eliminated. The Soda Lake Campground will be converted to day-use facilities, and the area around the Bluebird Campground will be available by permit for day use as an educational site. Morgan Lake Road will be closed to overnight travel. Facilities with increased accessibility will be developed to promote compatible hunting and fishing. Waterfowl and big game hunting opportunities will be expanded by opening new areas; providing for additional hunting weapons; and implementing additional youth hunt days, areas, and seasons. The waterfowl hunting lottery will be discontinued in favor of first-come, first-served hunting. A new hiking and interpretive trail will be developed within the Drumheller Channel National Natural Landmark in cooperation with the National Park Service. Seasonal and permanent wildlife observation blinds will be provided. New interpretive and educational programs and brochures will be developed, with an emphasis on building the volunteer program to manage them. The Sandhill Crane Festival will remain a priority. Fish stocking by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue, with an approved fisheries management plan, but will be discontinued in lakes where there is the highest likelihood of success for northern leopard frog recovery.
Step-down plans on informational and interpretive signs, cultural resource management, habitat management, and other management areas related to the goals and objectives in this CCP will be developed. Water rights and/or agreements will be pursued to ensure the availability of water for moist soil management.
In addition to the methods in
•
•
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make available the final environmental impact statement (EIS), and final record of decision under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 analyzing the impacts of the issuance of an incidental take permit for implementation of the final Oncor Electric Delivery LLC's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Our decision is to issue a 30-year incidental take permit to Oncor for implementation of the preferred alternative (described below), which authorizes incidental take of animal species and impacts to plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Oncor has agreed to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to these species, as described in their HCP.
We will issue a final permit no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice. Comments on the final EIS and HCP will be accepted until February 21, 2012.
For where to review documents and submit comments, see Reviewing Documents and Submitting Comments in
Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.
We, the Service, announce the availability of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD), which we developed in compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as well as the final Oncor Electric Delivery LLC (Oncor) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as submitted by the applicant. All alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our December 2011 final EIS and Oncor's HCP. The ROD documents the rationale for our decision.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our final EIS, we have selected Alternative 1, the proposed HCP. The proposed action is to issue Oncor an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Take of listed plant species is not defined in the Act, although the Act does identify several prohibitions. However, because covered species in the Oncor HCP include both plants and animals, in the following discussion we use the term “incidental take” when discussing impacts to covered plants, as well as actual incidental take of covered animals.
Oncor will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset impacts to covered species according to their HCP. For all but the whooping crane, impacts will be mitigated through purchase of mitigation credits from a Service-approved conservation bank, purchasing high-quality habitat near the impact area, or if purchase of land is not a viable mitigation option (e.g., mitigation necessary to offset impacts does not generate sufficient funds to purchase a reasonable amount of land to support the conservation of the species), additional options will be explored with the Service as described in the HCP. Within 1 mile of confirmed or potentially suitable stopover habitat for
Oncor applied to the Service for an ITP. As part of the permit application, Oncor developed the HCP to meet the requirements of an ITP. Our issuance of an ITP and implementation of the HCP allow Oncor to incidentally take the covered species during construction, operation, and maintenance of various facilities (e.g., electric transmission and distribution lines), as well as during emergency response work (covered activities). The proposed plan area is 100 of Oncor's 102-county service area, excluding Travis and Williamson counties, where any impacts to listed species will be authorized under existing permits (see map 1-1 in the HCP). The proposed covered area includes any area within Oncor's service area where covered activities are expected to affect listed species during the 30-year ITP term.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the Service the authority to approve or deny an ITP in accordance with the Act. To act on Oncor's permit application, we must determine that the HCP meets the issuance criteria specified in the Act and in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. The issuance of an ITP is a Federal action subject to NEPA compliance, including the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).
On July 15, 2011, we issued a draft EIS and requested public comment on our evaluation of the potential impacts associated with issuance of an ITP for implementation of the HCP and to evaluate alternatives, along with the draft HCP (76 FR 41808). We included public comments and responses associated with the draft EIS and draft HCP in the final EIS.
The purpose of the section 10(a)(l)(B) permit is to authorize incidental take associated with the covered activities described above. We identified key issues and relevant factors through public scoping, working with other agencies and groups, and comments from the public. We received responses from three Federal agencies and one State agency. The National Park Service had no comment, the Environmental Protection Agency had “no objections” to implementation of the preferred alternative, and the Federal Aviation Administration encouraged Oncor to coordinate with them on any projects that would affect navigable airspace (Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) had more substantive comments, including requesting clarification regarding how mitigation would be implemented, a request to be included on any committees formed to determine mitigation strategies, the control of invasive species, covering additional rare species within the action area, and obtaining any necessary permits from TPWD for State-listed species. The Service believes these comments are addressed and reasonably accommodated in the final documents. No new significant issues arose following publication of the draft documents.
We considered three alternatives in the EIS.
We intend to issue an ITP allowing Oncor to implement the preferred alternative (Alternative 1), as it is described in the final EIS. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of this decision entails the issuance of the ITP, including all terms and conditions governing the permit. Implementation of this decision requires adherence to all of the minimization and mitigation measures specified in the HCP, as well as monitoring and adaptive management measures.
We have selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 1) for implementation based on multiple environmental and social factors, including potential impacts and benefits to covered species and their habitat, the extent and effectiveness of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and social and economic considerations. We did not choose the No Action Alternative because, as compared with the preferred alternative, a project-by-project approach for complying with the Act would be more time-consuming and less efficient, and would result in piecemeal mitigation incapable of providing comprehensive or comparable net benefits to covered species. While Alternative 2 would result in a greater amount of mitigation, it was not chosen because of the uncertainties associated with planning and implementation over such an extended duration, 50 years, which would likely result in the need to modify or amend the permit, resulting in inefficiencies and limiting the effectiveness of the HCP.
In order to issue an ITP, we must ascertain that the HCP meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and (B). We have made that determination based on the criteria summarized below:
1.
2.
3.
The Service's no surprises assurances are discussed in the HCP and measures to address changed circumstances have been identified. Adaptive management will be used to direct changes to conservation, mitigation, or management measures and monitoring when needed. Unforeseen circumstances would be addressed through the Service's close coordination with Oncor in the implementation of the HCP, and Oncor has committed to a coordination process to address such circumstances. We have, therefore, determined that Oncor's financial commitment and plan, along with their willingness to address changed and unforeseen circumstances in a cooperative fashion, is sufficient to meet this criterion.
If needed, Oncor will arrange for an unconditional irrevocable stand-by letter of credit to be issued to the Service in the amount of the expected mitigation cost, as calculated in Section 6 of the HCP that will be issued by a nationally recognized banking institution acceptable to the Service with an expiration date that extends through the expected completion date of the mitigation measures.
4.
5.
We have determined that the preferred alternative best balances the protection and management of habitat for covered species, while allowing and providing a streamlined process for compliance with the Act for continued construction, operation, and maintenance of electric facilities within Oncor's service area. Considerations used in this decision include whether (1) mitigation will benefit the covered species; (2) mitigation lands will be managed for the species in perpetuity; (3) other conservation measures will protect and enhance habitat; (4) mitigation measures for the covered species will fully offset anticipated impacts to the species and provide recovery opportunities; and (5) the HCP is consistent with the covered species' recovery plans.
A final permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of this notice of availability and completion of the record of decision.
You may obtain copies of the final EIS, final ROD, and final HCP by going to
• Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C. St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103. Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Adam Zerrenner (see above).
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments; announcement of public workshops.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce) and other Federal, State, and tribal partners, announce that we are seeking public comments and input regarding the draft National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (Strategy). The purpose of the Strategy will be to inspire and enable natural resource professionals and other decision makers to take action to conserve the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and ecosystem functions, as well as the human uses and values these natural systems provide, in a changing climate. In addition to this request for written comments, several public workshops will be conducted in order to provide additional opportunities for public involvement and discussion of the draft. The draft Strategy is available at the following link:
There will be two additional public workshops held as online web conferences or “webinars,” during which interested members of the public will be able to participate remotely. These web conferences will be held on January 26, 2012, and February 22, 2012.
We request that all persons planning to attend a workshop in person or participate via a webinar register at
Mark Shaffer, Office of the Science Advisor, at (703) 358-2603 (telephone) or
In cooperation with NOAA and other Federal, State, and tribal partners, we are soliciting public comments on the draft National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (Strategy).
The adverse impacts of climate change transcend political and administrative boundaries. No single entity or level of government can safeguard wildlife and society against the effects of climate change. When finalized, this draft Strategy will present a unified approach—reflecting shared principles and science-based practices—for reducing the negative impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and our natural resource heritage. The Strategy will provide a basis for sensible actions that can be taken now, in spite of the uncertainties that exist about precise impacts of climate change. It also will provide guidance about what further actions are most likely to promote natural resource adaptation to climate change, and will describe mechanisms that will foster collaboration among all levels of government, conservation organizations, and private landowners.
Climate change affects more than temperature. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, impacts include shifts in rainfall and storm patterns, increasing wildfires, and more frequent water shortages, as well as rising sea levels, loss of sea ice, ocean acidification, and coastal flooding and erosion. Given the magnitude of the observed changes in climate, it is not surprising that fish, wildlife, and plant resources in the United States and around the world are already being affected. The impacts can be seen everywhere, from working landscapes like tree farms and pastures to wilderness areas far from human habitation. As the climate continues to change over the next century, so too will the effects on species, ecosystems, and their functions. Furthermore, climate-induced changes are also likely to exacerbate existing stresses like habitat loss and fragmentation, putting additional pressure on our nation's valued living resources.
Rapid warming may also begin to threaten the benefits that natural systems provide to people and communities, creating new challenges for human health, infrastructure, agriculture, transportation, and energy supplies. At risk are clean air and water; flood and erosion control; natural resource jobs and income; hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related recreation; and, ultimately, our quality of life.
Most simply, climate adaptation means helping people and natural systems prepare for and cope with the effects of a changing climate. Climate adaptation is an essential complement to climate change mitigation, or efforts to decrease the rate and extent of climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions or enhancing carbon uptake and storage. Coordinated adaptation planning can help limit the damage climate change causes to our natural resources and communities, and will require new approaches, additional resources, and a coordinated approach across Federal, State, Tribal and local partners.
Over the past decade, there have been an increasing number of calls for action by government and nongovernmental entities to better understand, prepare for, and address the impacts of climate change on natural resources and the communities that depend on those resources. For example, in 2007 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study entitled “Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources,” recommending that guidance and tools be developed to help Federal natural resource managers incorporate and address climate change in their resource management efforts. In 2008, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released the report “Preliminary Review of Adaptation Options for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources,” which called for and identified a variety of new approaches to natural resource management to increase resiliency and adaptation of ecosystems and resources.
In 2009, Congress asked the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the White House Council on Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a national, government-wide climate adaptation strategy for fish, wildlife, plants, and related ecological processes. Language in the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (House Report 111-316, pages 76-77) urged CEQ and DOI to “develop a national, government-wide strategy to address climate impacts on fish, wildlife, plants, and associated ecological processes” and “provide that there is integration, coordination, and public accountability to ensure efficiency and avoid duplication.” In addition, CEQ's Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force supported this request and called for the development of a climate adaptation strategy for fish, wildlife, and plants in its 2010 Progress Report to the President.
In the fall of 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CEQ invited NOAA and State wildlife agencies (with the New York Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources as the State agencies' lead representative) to co-lead the development of the strategy. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is also providing support through a cooperative agreement with the Service.
Initial public outreach during 2009 and 2010 contributed toward developing the following set of key principles to help guide this effort as it moves forward:
• Build a national framework for cooperative climate response.
• Respect jurisdictional authorities.
• Provide a blueprint for collective action that promotes collaboration and communication across government and non-government entities.
• Adopt a landscape/seascape-based approach that integrates best-available science and adaptive management.
• Focus actions and investments on natural resources of the United States and its Territories.
• Identify critical scientific and management needs.
• Engage the public.
• Integrate strategies for natural resources adaptation with those of other sectors such as transportation and agriculture.
• Identify opportunities to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
• Act now: Time is of the essence.
In late 2010, a diverse group of Federal, State, and tribal agencies were asked to participate as members of an intergovernmental Steering Committee, to provide advice and support for development of the Strategy. The Steering Committee includes representatives from 16 Federal agencies with management authorities for fish, wildlife, plants, or habitat, as well as representatives from 5 State fish and wildlife agencies and two intertribal fish and wildlife commissions. The Steering Committee charged a small Management Team, made up of representatives of the FWS, NOAA, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (on behalf of the States), the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to oversee the day-to-day development of the Strategy. The Management Team was asked to engage with a diverse group of stakeholders, as well as to coordinate and communicate across agencies and departments.
In March of 2011, the Management Team invited more than 90 natural resource professionals (both researchers and managers) from Federal, State, and tribal agencies to form five Technical Teams based around major U.S. ecosystems (marine, coastal, inland waters, forest, and combined grasslands/shrublands/deserts/tundra systems). These Teams, which were co-chaired by Federal, State, and tribal representatives, worked approximately 7 months to provide technical information on climate change impacts and to collectively develop strategies and actions for adapting to climate change.
We initially requested public comments and input on the development of the Strategy in a May 24, 2011, notice of intent in the
We now open the public comment period (see
Key milestones are shown below:
Ultimately, the Strategy will be a blueprint for common action that outlines needed scientific support, policy, and legal frameworks; recommended management practices; processes for integration and communication; and a framework for implementing these approaches. It will enable national and international conservation communities to harness collective expertise, authority, and skills in order to define and prioritize a shared set of conservation goals and objectives.
Public involvement is critical for the development of a robust and relevant response to the impacts of climate change. Particularly valuable to the effort are public guidance on priorities, recommendations for approaches, and suggestions based on local knowledge and experience.
Initial outreach and planning for the Strategy began in 2009 and early 2010, with a number of listening and engagement sessions, as well as several Conservation Leadership Forums. More information about past engagement efforts, as well as upcoming meetings and engagement opportunities, is available at
We will be accepting public comments through our Web site until the date specified in
We encourage the public to submit comments and input on the draft Strategy. The comments that are most useful are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations and analyses of applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
You must submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed above in the
We are committed to transparency in developing and implementing the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. The Service, NOAA, and other partners will also actively engage interested parties, including, as appropriate, State, Tribal, and local authorities; regional governance structures; academic institutions; nongovernmental organizations; recreational interests; and private enterprise.
Several public workshops will be held around the country, as described in
There will also be two additional public workshops that will be held as an online web conference or “webinar” (see
Please visit the Strategy Web site at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Conference Report for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Decision Approving Lands for Conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision to Sea Lion Corporation. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Containing approximately 85 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until February 21, 2012 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
3. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
The BLM by phone at (907) 271-5960 or by email at
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Searchlight Wind Energy Project and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. Publication of this notice also serves to segregate the identified lands from appropriation under the public land laws for a period of 2 years, including location under the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing Act or the Materials Act, subject to valid existing rights.
To ensure comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Searchlight Wind Energy Project Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments related to the Searchlight Wind Energy Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the Searchlight Wind Energy Project are available in the Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.
Gregory Helseth, Renewable Energy Project Manager, (702) 515-5173; 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130-2301; email:
Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC (SWE), a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, applied to the BLM for a right-of-way (ROW) grant on public lands to develop a 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility. The ROW application area encompasses approximately 18,789.71 acres of BLM-administered public lands adjacent to Searchlight, located approximately 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada. The project is in conformance with the 1998 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan.
The proposed wind turbines would be up to 262-feet-tall from the ground to the hub with blades extending up to an additional 153 feet. The total height of each turbine would be up to 415 feet. In addition to the wind turbines, the proposed project would require the construction of new access roads, two electrical substations, an overhead transmission line connecting the two substations, an electrical interconnection facility/switchyard owned and operated by Western Area Power Administration (Western), an operations and maintenance building, and temporary and permanent laydown areas. Three permanent meteorological masts would remain on the site to measure the wind speed and direction across the site over the life of the project.
SWE has requested to interconnect its proposed project to the electrical transmission grid via Western's Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. Western, a Federal agency, is participating in the EIS process as a cooperating agency and may use the EIS to support its decision to approve or deny SWE's interconnection request. Western has also submitted a ROW application to the BLM for construction and operation of the electrical interconnection facility/switchyard, which is analyzed as part of this EIS.
The proposed action analyzed in the Draft EIS is to approve the project in response to the applications received from SWE and Western. Three alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EIS—an 87 wind turbine layout, a 96 wind turbine alternative, and a no-action alternative. The 87 wind turbine alternative is the BLM's preferred alternative and has a smaller footprint than the 96 wind turbine alternative. The Draft EIS describes and analyzes the project's site-specific impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, environmental justice, geological resources, human health, and hazardous materials, lands and realty, noise, noxious weeds, paleontological resources, recreation, socioeconomic resources, transportation, visual resources and water resources.
A Notice of Intent was published in the
Maps of the proposed project area and the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS are available at the Las Vegas Field Office. Please note that public comments and information submitted will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
In connection with its processing of SWE's and Western's application, the BLM is also segregating the public lands within the project application area for the project from appropriation under public land laws, including the Mineral Law of 1872, as amended, but not the Mineral Leasing or the Material Sales Acts, for a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice. This is done under the authority contained in 43 CFR 2091.3-1(e) and 43 CFR 2804.25(e), and is subject to valid existing rights.The public lands contained within this temporary segregation total approximately 18,789.71 acres and are described as follows:
Sec. 23, that portion lying east of the easterly right-of-way of S.R. 95 NVCC-020733, excepting Patent No. 27-72-0013, and patented mineral surveys;
T. 29 S., R. 63 E.,
The area described contains 18,789.71 acres, more or less, in Clark County, Nevada.
The BLM has determined that this temporary segregation is necessary to ensure the orderly administration of the public lands by maintaining the status quo while it processes SWE's and Western's ROW applications for the above described lands. The temporary segregation period will terminate and the lands will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the Mining Law, if one of the following events occurs: (1) The BLM issues a decision granting, granting with modifications, or denying SWE's and Western's ROW authorization request; (2) Publication in the
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Boise District Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold a meeting as indicated below.
The meeting will be held March 21, 2012, at the Boise District Office, located at 3948 S. Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho, beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 4:30 p.m. Members of the public are invited to attend. A public comment period will be held.
MJ Byrne, Public Affairs Officer and RAC Coordinator, BLM Boise District, 3948 Development Ave., Boise, ID 83705, Telephone (208) 384-3393.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho. Items on the agenda include reports by the RAC's Resource Management Plan Subgroup on its collaboration with the development of the Four Rivers Field Office Resource Management Plan. A progress report on the Paradigm Project will be provided by the District's Fuels Program, and the environmental impact statement for renewal of 25 grazing permits in western Owyhee County. An update will also be given on accomplishments during FY 2011 and plans for FY2012, related to implementation of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, Subpart F—Owyhee Public Land Management. Each field manager will discuss progress being made on priority actions in their offices. Agenda items and location may change due to changing circumstances. The public may present written or oral comments to members of the Council. At each full RAC meeting, time is provided in the agenda for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance should contact the BLM Coordinator as provided above. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint filed on behalf of Mondis Technology, Ltd. on January 13, 2012. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain video displays and products using and containing same. The complaint names Chimei Innolux Corporation of Taiwan; and Innolux Corporation of Austin, TX, as respondents.
The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five pages in length, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order in this investigation would negatively affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential orders;
(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the orders; and
(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order and a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight business days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2871”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. The Commission's rules authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means only to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures,
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50(a)(4)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that there is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by respondents Bourdeau Bros., Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises in the above-captioned remand investigation. The Commission has reinstated the general exclusion order with respect to subject self-propelled forage harvesters and the cease and desist orders against Bourdeau and OK Enterprises and certain other firms that it had issued in the original investigation, and has terminated the investigation.
Mark B. Rees, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3116. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The remand of this investigation involves the gray market claims of Deere & Co. (“Deere”) that Bourdeau Bros., Inc., Sunova Implement Co., and OK Enterprises (collectively, “the Bourdeau respondents”) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court vacated the determination of violation against the Bourdeau respondents and remanded for findings on whether domestic sales of EVSPFHs by official Deere dealers were authorized by Deere and whether all or substantially all of the SPFH's authorized by Deere for sale in the domestic market were of its North American version (“NA”) SPFHs.
Following receipt of the mandate, the Commission rescinded its remedial orders with respect to EVSPFHs and referred the investigation to the original presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ considered and denied cross-motions for summary determination on the remanded issues, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and issued an initial determination on remand (“RID”) of violation of section 337. The Bourdeau respondents petitioned for review. The Commission determined to review the ALJ's summary determination order and the RID. Based on additional rounds of briefing and its review of the entire record, the Commission issued a final determination that there was no violation of section 337. The Commission found that Deere failed to prove that sales of EVSPFHs in the United States by its official dealers were not authorized and also failed to prove that substantially all of the authorized sales of Deere SPFHs in the United States were NASPFHs.
Deere appealed. On appeal, the Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
On October 14, 2010, the Commission requested briefing by the parties on the merits of the remand. Deere and the Bourdeau respondents completed briefing on December 10, 2010.
Based on the record of this investigation, including the Court's instructions on remand and the parties' briefing on remand, the Commission determined that Deere has established that substantially all of its U.S. SPFH sales were of NASPFHs and therefore has met its burden of proof on remand to satisfy the “all or substantially all” test for gray market trademark infringement and, accordingly, is entitled to a determination of violation of section 337 and the reinstatement of the exclusion order and cease and desist orders with respect to EVSPFHs issued by the Commission in the original investigation.
The Commission has terminated the investigation in accordance with the above findings on remand. The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 61) granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation as to respondents Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., of Irvine, California (collectively, “Toshiba”) based on a settlement agreement. Because the Toshiba entities were the last remaining entities in the investigation, the consolidated investigation is terminated.
Clark S. Cheney, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2661. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 19, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Ogma, LLC (“Ogma”). 76 FR 29006 (May 19, 2011). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain motion-sensitive sound effects devices and image display devices and components and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,825,427 (“the '427 patent”) and 6,150,947 (“the '947 patent”).
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-787 on July 18, 2011, based on another complaint filed by Ogma. 76 FR 42136 (July 18, 2011). The complaint in the latter investigation alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by reason of infringement of the same patents asserted in the earlier 773 investigation, namely the '427 patent and the '947 patent. The complaint in the 787
On July 19, 2011, the ALJ issued an order (Inv. No. 337-TA-787, Order No. 1) consolidating the 787 investigation with the 773 investigation. The consolidated investigation proceeded under the caption of the 773 investigation.
On December 13, 2011, Ogma and Toshiba filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to Toshiba based on a settlement agreement. On December 21, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 61) granting the motion to terminate the investigation as to Toshiba. Because the Toshiba entities were the last remaining respondents in the investigation, the ALJ also determined that the investigation should be terminated. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID. The consolidated investigation is terminated.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 21, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530. Additionally, comments may also be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
60-Day notice of information collection.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) will submit the following information collection renewal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection renewal is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until March 20, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated number of respondents, estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Abstract: This is a renewal of an existing information collection implementing the record-keeping, labeling, and inspection requirements of 28 CFR part 75, accounting for changes in the underlying statute made by Congress in enacting the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
The information collection documents the record-keeping, labeling, and inspection requirements for producers of visual depictions of actual and simulated sexually explicit conduct, and the certification regime for the exemption from these requirements, in certain circumstances, for producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct and visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct constituting the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. These statutory requirements of 28 CFR part 75, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 2257A, are designed to ensure that visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct are produced in accordance with laws and regulations, and without the involvement of minors under 18 years of age.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The Department is unable to estimate with any precision the number of entities producing visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct. As a partial indication, the Department's 2008 regulatory review, including the information collection request and PRA Supporting Statement (RIN 1105-AB19), cited data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2002. Employing the same method of analysis, according to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007, there were 11,974 establishments engaged in motion picture and video production in the United States. Based on a rough assumption that 10% of the establishments are engaged in the production of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct, the Department estimates that approximately 1,974 motion picture and video producing establishments are required to comply with these statutory requirements. (The Department does not certify this estimate.)
Additionally, the statute provides an exemption from these requirements applicable in certain circumstances, and it requires producers to submit certifications to qualify for this exemption. From March 18, 2009, the effective date of the certification regime, to the present, the Department has received approximately 865 certification letters. For the entities that qualify for the exemption, the Department estimates that it would take less than 20 hours per year to prepare the biennial certification required for the exemption.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: If OMB were to assume that 3,000,000 visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct are created each year and that it requires 6 minutes to complete the record-keeping requirement for each depiction, the record-keeping requirements would impose a burden of 300,000 hours. If, however, OMB were to assume that producers of 90% of these depictions qualify for the statutory exemption from these requirements, the requirements would only impose a burden of 30,000 hours (These estimates were included in the Department's 2008 regulatory review, including the information collection request and PRA Supporting Statement (RIN 1105-AB19). The Department does not certify the accuracy of these numbers.)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 21, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530. Additionally, comments also may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Written comments and
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
30-Day notice of information collection.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 21, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to email them to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The records are of imported items that are on the United States Munitions Import List. The importers must register with ATF and file an intent to import specific items as well as certify to the Bureau that the items were in fact received. The records are maintained at the registrant's business premises where they are available for inspection by ATF officers during compliance inspections or criminal investigations.
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice of information collection.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until [insert the date 30 days from the date this notice is published in the
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn.: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are received is to email them to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The nonimmigrant alien information will be used to determine if a nonimmigrant alien is eligible to purchase, obtain, possess, or import a firearm. Nonimmigrant aliens also must maintain the documents while in possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States for verification purposes.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 12,100 respondents will take an estimated 6 minutes to report the information.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,210 annual total burden hours associated with this collection.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day notice of information collection.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 21, 2012. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best way to ensure your comments are
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Firearms manufacturers records are permanent records of all firearms manufactured and records of their disposition. These records are vital to support ATF's mission to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
(5)
(6) An
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, Room 2E-508, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSRP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 13, 1998, NSRP filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 29, 2010. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 21, 2011, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Hula Media, Long Island City, NY; John A. Hoehn (individual member), Pennsville, NJ; Peter Humphrey (individual member), San Francisco, CA; Isak Johnsson (individual member), Sollentuna, SWEDEN; George Luff (individual member), Sewickley, PA; Matt Pearcey (individual member), Wells, UNITED KINGDOM; and Jason Schwartz (individual member), Las Vegas, NV, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 26, 2011. A notice was published in the
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Evaluation of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders—Adult Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Submit comments on or before February 21, 2012.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the
Submit comments about this request to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: (202) 395-6929/Fax: (202) 395-6881 (these are not toll-free numbers), email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at (202) 693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The ETA seeks to collect information from program participants and staff in the random assignment evaluation of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders-Adult Program (RExO). This evaluation will examine the impact of comprehensive employment-centered services on newly released prisoners' employment, earnings, and recidivism. The evaluation team will compare the outcomes of interest for RExO service recipients with those of eligible individuals who are randomly assigned to the control group and do not receive RExO services. The ETA requests approval to conduct two rounds of participant surveys to learn about participant characteristics and outcomes of RExO, a joint initiative launched in 2005 of the DOL, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and several other federal agencies. The purpose of the RExO, formerly known as the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI), is to provide employment-centered services as well as case management, mentoring and a range of other supportive services to nonviolent offenders newly released from prison. The initiative builds on several earlier and ongoing federal reentry programs; including Weed and Seed, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, the Reentry Partnership Initiative, and, most directly, Ready4Work. RExO grantee programs follow a three-stage reentry framework that begins with pre-release services, progresses through structured reentry, and culminates in community reintegration.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Monday, February 6, 2012.
The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after April 1, 2012.
Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the Committee.
It is suggested that those desiring more specific information contact Advisory Committee Management Officer, Lisette Voyatzis, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call (202) 606-8322.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
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 Science Foundation (NSF) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects.
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 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.
Written comments on this notice must be received by March 20, 2012 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Contact Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
(c) Enter into contracts or other arrangements, or modifications thereof, for the carrying on, by organizations or individuals in the United States and foreign countries, including other government agencies of the United States and of foreign countries, of such scientific or engineering activities as the Foundation deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, specific scientific or engineering activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation or national security, and, when deemed appropriate by the Foundation, such contracts or other arrangements or modifications thereof, may be entered into without legal consideration, without performance or other bonds and without regard to section 5 of title 41, U.S.C.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft NUREG, NUREG-2104, Revision 0, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling Water Reactors.”
Submit comments by December 31, 2018. Comments received after this
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0010 in the subject line of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see “Submitting Comments and Accessing Information” in the
•
•
•
Richard Pelton, Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs, Office of New Reactors, TWFN Mail Stop 07-D24, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Phone: (301) 415-1028, email:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
•
•
•
The draft NUREG provides the basis for the development of content-valid licensing examinations for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs). The examinations developed using this Catalog along with the Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors (NUREG-1021) will sample the topics listed under Title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Francis Guilbeau was employed as a Radiographer at Accurate NDE & Inspection, LLC, (Accurate NDE or Licensee) located in Broussard, Louisiana, in March 2010. Accurate NDE is the holder of a general license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the
On May 26, 2010, the NRC conducted a special inspection of licensed activities involving the use of byproduct material for industrial radiography conducted under a general license pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 150.20. The inspection was conducted in response to an event that occurred on March 15, 2010, involving the loss of a sealed source of iridium-192 while performing licensed activities in offshore Federal waters. On June 28, 2010, the NRC's Office of Investigations, Region IV, began an investigation (Case No. 4-2010-062) to determine, in part, whether Mr. Guilbeau: (1) Willfully failed to follow operating procedures by attempting to retrieve a disconnected source without making the proper notifications and obtaining authorization from the Accurate NDE radiation safety officer (RSO); and (2) willfully recorded an inaccurate number for a pocket dosimeter reading on the Accurate NDE Daily Radiation Report dated March 14, 2010. By letter dated July 28, 2011 (ML11209B637), the NRC informed Mr. Guilbeau that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action for two apparent violations of NRC's deliberate misconduct rule, 10 CFR 30.10. The NRC offered Mr. Guilbeau the opportunity to request a predecisional enforcement conference or request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the NRC in an attempt to resolve issues associated with this matter. In response, Mr. Guilbeau requested a predecisional enforcement conference. A predecisional enforcement conference was held with Mr. Guilbeau on August 25, 2011, in an
Based on the NRC review of the information obtained during the predecisional enforcement conference, the inspection and the investigation, two violations of the NRC's rule prohibiting deliberate misconduct, 10 CFR 30.10, were identified. First, Mr. Guilbeau engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) by causing Accurate NDE to be in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(b)(5), which requires Accurate NDE to comply with the terms of its State license. Paragraph 21A of the Louisiana State license required Accurate NDE to follow its operating procedures. Accurate NDE's operating procedures prohibit a radiographer from retrieving a disconnected source unless he contacts the radiation safety officer (RSO) first and obtains authorization. Mr. Guilbeau did not contact the RSO or obtain authorization from the RSO prior to attempting retrieval of the source. Therefore, Mr. Guilbeau's actions caused Accurate NDE to be in violation of its Louisiana State license, and 10 CFR 150.20. During an interview with the Office of Investigations, Mr. Guilbeau admitted that he tried to retrieve the source without first contacting the RSO. Mr. Guilbeau also stated in this interview that he knew radiographers were not supposed to retrieve a source. In a written test on Accurate NDE's procedures taken on March 10, 2010, four days prior to going out on this job, Mr. Guilbeau chose the correct response to a question asking what to do in the event of a source disconnect—a further indication that he knew it was necessary to contact the RSO and that he was not supposed to attempt to put the source back in the camera.
This incident occurred on Mr. Guilbeau's first job back with Accurate NDE after several years working elsewhere. During his previous tenure with Accurate NDE in 2004-2006, Mr. Guilbeau was involved in a similar incident and in that case, he immediately called the office. At the predecisional enforcement conference held on August 25, 2011, Mr. Guilbeau stated repeatedly that his primary aim was to get the “pill” hooked back up so he could start X-raying again. He also indicated that he should have contacted the office first, but it was his first job back with Accurate NDE, and he just wanted to get the work done without any complications.
Because Mr. Guilbeau knew that he was supposed to contact the RSO before attempting to retrieve a source but did not do so, and because his actions caused the license to be in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(b)(5), Mr. Guilbeau's actions constitute deliberate misconduct pursuant to 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1). During the attempted source retrieval, the licensee's conclusion was that the source fell through the grating on the deck of the platform into the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, as a result of Mr. Guilbeau's actions, the source was lost.
Second, Mr. Guilbeau engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2) by deliberately submitting to Accurate NDE, an NRC general licensee, information that he knew was inaccurate in some material respect. Specifically, Mr. Guilbeau recorded a number for a pocket dosimeter reading associated with work performed by another radiographer on March 14, 2010, on the Daily Radiation Report, that Mr. Guilbeau knew was inaccurate. During an interview by the Office of Investigations, Mr. Guilbeau admitted he did not know what the other radiographer's true radiographic dose exposure was for March 14, 2010, and estimated a number on the licensee's Daily Radiation Report for that shift. During the predecisional enforcement conference, Mr. Guilbeau stated that he could not remember receiving the other radiographer's radiographic dose exposure that would have been recorded at the end of the shift. This would indicate that Mr. Guilbeau did not enter the correct dose exposure reading for the other radiographer on the Daily Radiation Report. As a result, Mr. Guilbeau deliberately submitted information to Accurate NDE, an NRC general licensee, information that he knew to be inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. This was a violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2). In addition, because the Daily Radiation Report is a record that Accurate NDE is required to keep pursuant to 10 CFR 34.83 and 34.47(b), Mr. Guilbeau's actions caused Accurate NDE to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.9(a), which requires that information required by regulation to be maintained by a licensee must be accurate in all material respects.
Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Francis Guilbeau, a former employee of Accurate NDE, violated 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) by engaging in deliberate misconduct that caused Accurate NDE to be in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(b)(5) and 30.9. Further, Mr. Guilbeau deliberately provided to Accurate NDE information that he knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC, in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(2).
The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement that general licensees operating under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR 150.20 comply with the terms and conditions of their Agreement State licenses and the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Guilbeau's actions caused the Licensee to violate 10 CFR 150.20(b)(5) and 10 CFR 30.9 and have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Guilbeau were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Guilbeau be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 1 year from the effective date of this Order, as defined in Section V. Additionally Mr. Guilbeau is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of 1 year following the prohibition period.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, 10 CFR parts 20, 34, and 10 CFR 150.20,
1. Mr. Francis Guilbeau is prohibited for 1 year from the effective date of this Order, as defined in Section V, from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. Specifically, Mr. Guilbeau is prohibited from performing, supervising, assisting or otherwise engaging in (1) Industrial radiography for an Agreement State licensee that is conducted in non-Agreement States, in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction within Agreement States, or in offshore waters under an NRC general license granted pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20, (2) industrial radiography for an NRC licensee, including, but not limited to,
2. As of the effective date of this Order, if Mr. Guilbeau is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer.
3. For a period of 1 year after the 1-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Guilbeau shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Guilbeau shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with NRC regulatory requirements and the basis for why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Guilbeau of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Francis Guilbeau must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 30 days of its issuance date. In addition, Mr. Guilbeau and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 30 days of its issuance date. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through NRC's Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), users will be required to install a web browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the web-based submission form, including the installation of the web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in portable document format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is available to the public at
If a person other than Mr. Francis Guilbeau requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d).
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Guilbeau or any other person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearings.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing or ADR, or written approval ofan extension of time in which to request a hearing, the effective date of this Order (the date that the provisions specified in Section IV above become final and effective) shall be 30 days from the issuance date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the effective date of this Order shall be when theextension expires if a hearing request has not been received. If a hearing or ADR is requested, the effective date of this Order shall be determined in accordance with the hearing or ADR process.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Comments must be submitted on or before March 20, 2012.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20526. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at (202) 692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
The Peace Corps Act states that “[t]he President may enroll in the Peace Corps for service abroad qualified citizens and nationals of the United States (referred to in this Act as “volunteers”). The terms and conditions of the enrollment * * * of volunteers shall be exclusively those set forth in this Act and those consistent therewith which the President may prescribe * * *” 22 U.S.C. 2504(a). Eligibility requirements for the Peace Corps have been prescribed in 22 CFR part 305. Among those eligibility requirements is one relating to medical status. An Applicant “must, with reasonable accommodation, have the physical and mental capacity required of a Volunteer to perform the essential functions of the Peace Corps Volunteer assignment for which he or she is otherwise eligible and be able to complete an agreed upon tour of service, ordinarily two years, without undue disruption due to health problems.” 22 CFR 305.2(c). All applicants for service must undergo a physical examination and a dental evaluation prior to Volunteer service to determine if they meet this medical status eligibility requirement. In addition, under 22 U.S.C. 2504(e), the Peace Corps provides medical care to Volunteers during their service and the information collected will also be used in connection with medical care and treatment during Peace Corps service for applicants who become Volunteers. Finally, the information collected may serve as a point of reference for any potential future Volunteer worker's compensation claims.
Volunteers serve in 67 developing countries where western-style healthcare is often not available. Volunteers are placed in remote locations where they may suffer hardship because they have no access to running water and/or electricity. They also may be placed in locations with extreme environmental conditions related to cold, heat or high altitude and they may be exposed to diseases not generally found in the U.S. Volunteers may be placed many hours from the Peace Corps medical office and not have easy access to any health care provider. Therefore, a thorough review of an Applicant's past medical history is an essential first step to determine their suitability for service in Peace Corps.
The current process requires almost all Applicants to undergo a costly and time consuming full medical evaluation. Under the current process, it sometimes happens that after an Applicant has spent large amounts of time and money, the Peace Corps finds that the Applicant is not medically qualified to serve. In 2012, the Peace Corps will change the current process in order to reduce the time and expense of Applicants and to ensure that only those who accept an invitation to serve undergo a complete medical evaluation. However, Applicants who have certain particularly difficult to accommodate conditions will be evaluated early in the process. This will reduce the time and expense for those Applicants who would, even with reasonable accommodation, not be likely to be able to perform the essential functions of a Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a tour of service without undue disruption due to health problems.
Under the new system, the Applicant will begin the medical part of the application process by completing a comprehensive health history form called the “Health History Form”. After completion of the Health History Form and after passing preliminary non-
The forms listed below may be sent to an individual Applicant at one of the following times in the medical review process: (1) After the Applicant completes the Health History Form and receives a nomination; (2) after a Peace Corps nurse reviews the Applicant's Health History Form and any completed forms previously requested; or (3) at the time of the Applicant's physical examination. The results of the physical examination and the information contained in the specific evaluation forms covered by this Supporting Statement will be used to make an individualized determination as to whether an Applicant for Volunteer service will, with reasonable accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of a Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a tour of service without undue disruption due to health problems.
If, based on the Applicant's responses on the Health History Form, additional information is required in order to make an individualized determination as to whether the Applicant will, with reasonable accommodation, be able to perform the essential functions of a Peace Corps Volunteer and complete a tour of service without undue disruption due to health problems, then one or more of the forms listed below may be sent to the Applicant.
This notice is issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2012.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to state that CMI and FIX connectivity charges will be charged on a per-Login ID basis. Firms may access C2 via either a CMI Client Application
On December 20, 2011, the Exchange filed to amend its connectivity fees (among other fees) in order to recoup some of the costs from recent investments made to upgrade the CMI Client Application Servers and FIX Ports.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 22, 2011, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, the comment received, and any response to the comment submitted by FINRA. The proposed rule change would, among other things, provide for post-trade transparency of MBS TBA Transactions that are reported to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”).
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G) to reflect changes to the Automated Quote Management service that will allow market makers to opt out of the service.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
A member registered as a Market Maker shall engage in a course of dealings for its own account to assist in the maintenance, insofar as reasonably practicable, of fair and orderly markets in accordance with this Rule.
(1) No change.
(2) Pricing Obligations. For NMS stocks (as defined in Rule 600 under Regulation NMS) a Market Maker shall adhere to the pricing obligations established by this Rule during Regular Trading Hours; provided, however, that such pricing obligations (i) shall not commence during any trading day until after the first regular way transaction on the primary listing market in the security, as reported by the responsible single plan processor, and (ii) shall be suspended during a trading halt, suspension, or pause, and shall not re-commence until after the first regular way transaction on the primary listing market in the security following such halt, suspension, or pause, as reported by the responsible single plan processor
(A)-(E) No change.
(F) Quotation Creation and Adjustment. For each Issue in which a Market Maker is registered, the System shall, in the absence of a quotation that complies with this Rule entered by that Market Maker, automatically create a quotation for display to comply with this Rule. System-created compliant displayed quotations will thereafter be allowed to rest and not be further adjusted by the System unless the relationship between the quotation and its related National Best Bid or National Best Offer, as appropriate, shrinks to the greater of: (a) 4 percentage points, or, (b) one-quarter the applicable percentage necessary to trigger an individual stock trading pause as described in NASDAQ Rule 4120(a)(11), or expands to within that same percentage less 0.5%, whereupon the System will immediately re-adjust and display the Market Maker's quote to the appropriate Designated Percentage set forth in section (D) above. Quotations originally entered by Market Makers which have not been modified by the System upon entry or after resting on the book shall be allowed to move freely towards the National Best Bid or National Best Offer, as appropriate, for potential execution.
(G) Quotation Refresh After Execution. In the event of an execution
(H)-(K) No change.
(b)-(e) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to amend Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G) to allow Exchange market makers to opt out of the Automated Quote Management service.
On November 5, 2010, the Commission approved all new Rule 4613, which included the Exchange's Automated Quote Management service provided under Rules 4613(a)(2)(F) and (G).
In the event of an execution against an Exchange-created compliant quotation, the market maker has its quote refreshed by the Exchange on the executed side of the market at the applicable designated percentage away from the then national best bid (offer), or if no national best bid (offer), the last reported sale.
As initially adopted, the Automated Quote Management service is currently applied to all Exchange market makers, with no provision for such member firms to opt out of the service. The Exchange is proposing to make the Automated Quote Management service voluntary and is adding functionality to allow Exchange market makers to opt out of the service. An Exchange market maker must inform the Exchange of its desire to opt out of the Automated Quote Management service, otherwise the service will continue to apply to the market maker's quotes. An Exchange market maker that has opted out of the Automated Quote Management service may opt back into the service by likewise informing the Exchange. To provide notice to the Exchange, a market maker must inform the NASDAQ Trade Desk in writing via
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal only allows Exchange market makers to opt out of the Automated Quote Management service which will enable market makers to manage their own quotes if they so choose. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to adopt an alternative to the $4 initial listing bid price requirement for the Nasdaq Capital Market. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Nasdaq's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq proposes to adopt an alternative to the minimum $4 price requirement for companies seeking to list on the Capital Market which meet the express exclusion from the definition of a “penny stock” contained in Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1(g).
Nasdaq is seeking to make this change to enhance the competition among exchanges for companies with securities priced between $2 and $4. While Section 11A of the Act
A number of companies have indicated a preference to initially list on the Capital Market instead of NYSE Amex and have expressed frustration at their inability to do so without reverse splitting their stock.
In a petition filed in May 2010, Nasdaq again requested that the Commission act to eliminate the competitive advantage provided NYSE Amex by the grandfather provision, including, if it felt appropriate, by abrogating the NYSE Amex rule and requiring NYSE Amex to adopt the same minimum $4 initial listing price currently applicable to Nasdaq.
The proposed rule change fits within another express exclusion to the Commission's penny stock definition and would allow a company that currently meets NYSE Amex's price requirement to instead list on the Capital Market at the same initial listing price requirement.
Unlike the relief Nasdaq requested in 2004 and 2010, the proposed rule change will require companies to meet an additional net tangible assets or revenue test, which NYSE Amex does not require, thus assuring that securities listed under the proposed rule change would not be considered “penny stocks” under the Act at the time of their listing. In that regard, Rule 3a51-1
A company that qualifies for initial listing only under the proposed requirement could become a “penny stock” if it fails the net tangible assets and revenue tests after listing and does not satisfy any of the other exclusions from being a penny stock. In order to assist brokers' and dealers' compliance with the requirements of the Penny Stock Rules, Nasdaq will monitor companies listed under the proposed alternative and publish a list of any company that initially listed under that requirement, which does not then meet the requirements of Rule 3a51-1(g), described above, or any of the other exclusions from being a penny stock contained in Rule 3a51-1.
Nasdaq notes that the adoption of the proposed rule change should not alter the Commission's prior designation of securities listed on the Capital Market as “covered securities” under Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In addition, Section 11A of the Act
Finally, as noted above, the proposed rule change would adopt the identical initial listing price requirement contained in the NYSE Amex Company Guide. As such, Nasdaq believes that its listing requirements would remain substantially similar to those of NYSE Amex, as required for covered securities under Section 18 of the Securities Act.
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Instead, the proposed rule change would enhance the competition between exchanges, and benefit companies and their investors, by allowing companies that today are forced to list on NYSE Amex an alternative listing venue.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to relocate certain rules in the NASDAQ Rulebook. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to relocate the following Rules: (i) Rule 7007, Collection of Exchange Fees and Other Claims—NASDAQ Options Market; (ii) Rule 7046, Nasdaq Options Maintenance Tool, (iii) Rule 7050, NASDAQ Options Market—Fees; (iv) Rule 7053, NASDAQ Options Market—Access Services; (v) Rule 7054, NASDAQ Options Market Data Distributor Fees; (vi) Rule 7056, NASDAQ Options Fee Disputes; and (vii) Rule 7059, NASDAQ Options Regulatory Fee. The Exchange is also proposing to relocate a portion of Rule 7002, Sales Fee, which applies to options, by replicating that fee in the new “Options Fees” Chapter. The Exchange is proposing to relocate these Rules to a new Chapter under the Options Rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
NASDAQ proposes to create a new Chapter in the NASDAQ Rulebook and relocate certain options fees, which apply only to Options Participants, to this new Chapter to further clarify its fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to create a new “Chapter XV,” entitled “Options Fees” under the Options Rules portion of the Rulebook. The Exchange proposes to relocate the below listed Rules, currently in the 7000 Series of the Rulebook, to this new Chapter under the Options Rules.
The Exchange proposes to specifically relocate the following Rules to the
In addition, the Exchange proposes to add the following language at the beginning of the Chapter to clarify that certain fees in the Rule 7000 series may also be applicable to Options Participants: “NASDAQ Options Market Participants may be subject to the Charges for Membership, Services and Equipment in the Rule 7000 Series as well as the fees in this Chapter XV.” The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to Rules 1002, Qualifications of Nasdaq Members and Associated Persons, 7015, Access Services, and 8320, Payment of Fines, Other Monetary Sanctions, or Costs; Summary Action for Failure to Pay, to provide updated cross-references to relocated Rules.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal to relocate fees applicable only to Options Participants, and not applicable to NASDAQ members transacting equities, to a new Chapter in the Rulebook specific to Options will assist members in locating fees. The Exchange believes that creating a new section and relocating the fees will add greater clarity to NASDAQ's Rules and provide members further guidance on the applicability of those Rules. The Exchange also believes that adding a clarifying sentence to the new Chapter to indicate that the Rule 7000 Series may also be applicable to Options Participants provides a cross-reference for Options Participants to readily locate other charges applicable to them as NASDAQ Stock Market members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
In notice document 2011-33715 appearing on pages 313 through 315 in the issue of Wednesday, January 4, 2012, make the following correction:
On page 315, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the last line “January 25, 2011” should read “January 25, 2012”.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Customer and Professional Routing Fees governing pricing for Exchange members using the Phlx XL II system,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the Exchange incurs for routing and executing Customer and Professional orders in equity and index options to BATS. The Exchange's Fee Schedule includes Routing Fees for routing and executing Customer and Professional orders to away markets. The Exchange currently assesses a Customer Routing Fee of $0.36 per contract and a Professional Routing Fee of $0.48 per contract for option orders that are routed to BATS. Recently, BATS announced that it would amend its customer and professional fees to remove liquidity to $0.44 per contract on January 3, 2012.
In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish Nasdaq Options Services LLC (“NOS”), a member of the Exchange, as the Exchange's exclusive order router.
As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that this fee is reasonable because it seeks to recoup costs that are incurred by the Exchange when routing Customer and Professional orders to BATS on behalf of its members. Each destination market's transaction charge varies and there is a standard clearing charge for each transaction incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fee would enable the Exchange to recover the customer and professional taker fees assessed by BATS, plus clearing fees for the execution of Customer and Professional orders. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Routing Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would be uniformly applied to all Customers and Professionals.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-01. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
FINRA is proposing to extend to January 17, 2013 the implementation of FINRA Rule 0180 (Application of Rules to Security-Based Swaps). FINRA Rule 0180, filed for immediate effectiveness by FINRA on July 8, 2011, will expire on January 17, 2012. FINRA Rule 0180 temporarily limits, with certain exceptions, the application of FINRA rules with respect to security-based swaps.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”),
Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act generally became effective on July 16, 2011 (360 days after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act,
Because the Act's expanded definition of “security” has similar implications for numerous provisions under FINRA rules,
FINRA believes it is appropriate to extend FINRA Rule 0180 for a limited period, to January 17, 2013, pending the final implementation of new rules and guidance that would provide greater regulatory clarity in relation to security-based swap activities, so as to provide relief from certain FINRA requirements and thereby help avoid undue market disruptions resulting from the change to the definition of “security” under the Act.
As noted in Item 2 of this filing, FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive both the requirement that the proposed rule be filed at least five (5) days in advance and the requirement that any change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule change immediately and prevent FINRA Rule 0180 from lapsing. The proposed rule change will expire on January 17, 2013. FINRA will amend the expiration date of FINRA Rule 0180 in subsequent filings as necessary such that the expiration date will be coterminous with the termination of relevant provisions of the SEC's Exemptive Release.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
FINRA has requested that the Commission waive both the 5-day advance filing requirement
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-004 and should be submitted on or before February 10, 2012.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 203, Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the twentieth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 203, Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
The meeting will be held February 21-23, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the twenty-eighth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services
The meeting will be held February 6-10, 2012, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Suites by Hilton Melbourne Beach Oceanfront, 1665 N. Highway A1A, Melbourne, Florida 32903
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological data Link Services. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Notice.
By
Barry Brayer, Special Programs Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone: (310) 725-3800, email:
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees)
In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides “advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director-
(1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title;
(2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan;
(3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and
(4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.”
The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are as follows:
Heidi Williams representing general aviation; Alan Stephen, Elling Halvorson, and Matthew Zuccaro representing commercial air tour concerns; Chip Dennerlein, Greg Miller, Dick Hingson, and Bryan Faehner representing environmental interests; and Rory Majenty and Ray Russell representing Native American tribes.
Selected to fill this vacancy, for an additional term, is returning member Rory Majenty. Mr. Majenty's term begins on April 3, 2012. The term of service for NPOAG ARC members is 3 years.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and Request for Public Comment.
The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain airport properties, approximately 3.407 acres, at the Tampa International Airport, Tampa, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as contained in federal grant assurances. The release of property will allow the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical purposes. The property is located southwest corner airport property, adjacent to Highway 60. The parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical use. The property will be released of its federal obligations to grant a perpetual utlility easement to the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) for relocation of transmission lines serving the Skyway Substation located off airport. The fair market value of the parcel has been determined by appraisal to be $695,000.
Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Tampa International Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.
Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the “waiver” or “modification” of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.
Comments are due on or before
Documents are available for review at the Tampa International Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of petition grant.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear)
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Goodyear has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on December 28, 2010, in the
Goodyear explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold labeling error, the sidewall marking on the tires incorrectly identifies the number of plies as “Tread 5 Plies Steel” when in fact it should be identified as “Tread 4 Plies Steel” on the sidewall of the tires as required by paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119.
Goodyear also explains that while the non-compliant tires are mislabeled, all of the tires included in this petition meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119.
Goodyear argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not create an unsafe condition and all other labeling requirements have been met.
Goodyear also points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
Goodyear additionally states that it has corrected the affected tire molds and all future production will have the correct material shown on the sidewall.
In summation, Goodyear believes that the described noncompliance of its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, and should be granted.
In the agency's judgment, the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on the ply material in a tire.
The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measureable effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case, because the sidewall markings indicate that some steel plies exist in the tire sidewall, this potential safety concern does not exist.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the 38,991
In cons