National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Procurement Policy Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service is amending its regulations for the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program to clarify that the Agency guarantee does not cover default and penalty interest or late charges. The Agency's regulations are currently silent on this issue. However, it has always been the Agency's policy not to pay out additional cost for default interest, penalty interest, and late charges calculated and submitted on a final report of loss claim under the Loan Note Guarantee. The Agency does permit the lender to charge default interest with prior Agency approval. By defining “interest” in the definition section of the regulation and clarifying the Agency's policy as it relates to default interest, penalty interest, and late charge, this will avert any misunderstandings.
This rule will become effective April 13, 2012 without further action unless the Agency receives written adverse comments or written notices of intent to submit adverse comments on or before March 14, 2012. If the Agency receives adverse comments or notices, the Agency will publish a timely document in the
Any adverse comments received will be considered under the proposed rule published in this edition of the
You may submit adverse comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments to this rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular work hours at the 300 7th Street SW., 7th Floor address listed above.
Mr. David Lewis, Rural Development, Business Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 3221, Washington, DC 20250-3221; email:
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program is 10.768. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Biorefinery Assistance is 10.865. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Rural Energy for America Program is 10.868.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” Rural Development has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Consultation will be completed at the time of the action performed.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. Additionally, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to the rule; and (3) administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before litigation against the Department or its Agencies may be initiated, in accordance with the regulations of the National Appeals Division of USDA at 7 CFR part 11.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments. Therefore, consultation with States is not required.
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency made this determination based on the fact that this regulation only impacts those who choose to participate in the program. Small entity applicants will
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal Governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. Rural Development has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If a tribe determines that this rule has implications of which Rural Development is not aware and would like to engage with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection activities associated with this rule are covered under the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, OMB Number: 0570-0017.
This rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0570-0017 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizens to access Government information and services electronically.
The Agency reviewed 7 CFR 4279.2 which is composed of two paragraphs, the first of which is pertinent.
Section 4279.2(a) discusses the definitions, which has thirty-seven terms used in the Guaranteed Loanmaking. The definitions and abbreviations contained in § 4279.2 also apply to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Servicing regulations and, unless otherwise noted, the Biorefinery Assistance Loan Program and the Rural Energy for America Program. Currently, the Agency regulations do not define or otherwise address “interest”, “default interest”, “penalty interest”, or “late charges”. However, it is the Agency's policy not to pay out additional cost for default interest, penalty interest, and late charges calculated and submitted on a final report of loss claim under the Loan Note Guarantee. However, lender's Promissory Note may contain provisions for default or penalty interest, or late charges with prior Agency approval.
The Agency is revising § 4279.2(a), to address the situation discussed in the “Background” section. Specifically, the Agency is adding a paragraph in § 4279.2(a), after the term “Holder” and before the term “Interim Financing”, which will define “Interest.” The change being made by this rule is to clarify that “interest” does not include default or penalty interest, or late fees. The lender may charge the borrower these fees with prior Agency approval. Accordingly, the Agency is making the changes in this direct final rule.
Business and industry, Loan programs, Rural development assistance.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XLII, title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1932(a); and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that the top 3 inches of the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes are not fireproof. This AD requires a one-time inspection to determine the part numbers of the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines, and replacing affected aero/fire seals with new, improved aero/fire seals. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the fan compartment (a fire zone) from migrating through the seal to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser actuator compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone), which could result in an uncontrolled fire.
This AD is effective March 19, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 19, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6496; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a third supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to the specified products. That third supplemental NPRM was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comments received. The Boeing Company and American Airlines both support the third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011).
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011), for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the third supplemental NPRM (76 FR 62649, October 11, 2011).
We estimate that this AD affects 803 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 19, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine exhaust.
This AD was prompted by a report that the top 3 inches of the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fire in the fan compartment (a fire zone) from migrating through the seal to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser actuator compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone), which could result in an uncontrolled fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes having an original airworthiness certificate issued before the effective date of this AD, and for airplanes on which the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness is before the effective date of this AD: Within 60 months or 8,200 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed inspection to determine the color of the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines. For any aero/fire seal having a completely grey color (which is the color of seals with part number (P/N) 315A2245-1 or 315A2245-2), with no red at the upper end of the seal, do the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. For any aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper end of the seal (which indicates installation of seals with P/N 315A2245-7 or 315A2245-8), no further action is required by this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if from that review the part number of the correct aero/fire seals (P/N 315A2245-7 or 315A2245-8) can be conclusively determined to be installed.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
For any aero/fire seal identified during the inspection/records check required by paragraph (g) of this AD to have a non-fireproof seal: Within six months after doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, replace the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines with new, improved aero/fire seals, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005. Replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines with new, improved aero/fire seals, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005, is terminating action for the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a non-fireproof thrust reverser seal having P/N 315A2245-1 or P/N 315A2245-2 on any airplane.
Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, dated April 7, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Chris Parker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6496; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email:
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Model 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a rudder hard-over event on a Model 747-400 series airplane, caused by a rudder power control module (PCM) manifold cracking and separating in the area of the yaw damper cavity end-cap. This condition could result in a hard-over of the rudder surface leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed runway excursion upon landing, in the event of failure of the lower or upper rudder PCM manifold. This AD requires replacing or modifying the upper and lower rudder PCMs. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 19, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 19, 2012.
For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6418; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
The National Transportation Safety Board fully supports the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011).
Boeing requested that we revise the Discussion section and paragraph (e) of the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011) to clarify that the corrective actions are not intended to prevent the manifold from cracking, but rather to prevent the cracking of the manifold from progressing to a rudder surface hard-over. Boeing pointed out that the secondary retention device incorporated in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010, prevents the yaw damper modulating piston assembly from shifting after a manifold failure, therefore, preventing a rudder surface hard-over. Boeing suggested removing the phrase, “if not corrected,” from the sentence, “Cracking in a rudder PCM manifold, if not corrected, could result in a failure of the upper or lower rudder PCM manifold which could result in a hard-over of the rudder surface leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed runway excursion upon landing.” In addition, Boeing suggested revising the sentence, “Although commanding full retract, pilot pedal inputs were ineffective in moving the lower rudder back to the right,” to replace the term “retract” with “right rudder,” and revising the sentence, “These events did not result in a hard-over, but created the need for a retention feature solution specified in AD 2008-13-03, Amendment 39-15566, for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes,” to clarify that the additional three events did not result in end-cap separation or a hard-over.
We agree that replacement or modification of the upper and lower rudder PCMs is intended to prevent the yaw damper modulating piston assembly from shifting after a manifold failure, consequently preventing a rudder surface hard-over. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (e) and the corresponding language in the Summary of this AD to clarify the intent. However, we cannot revise the Discussion section of this AD, because that section is not re-stated in this final rule.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 36390, June 22, 2011).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 19, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report of a rudder hard-over event on a Model 747-400 series airplane, caused by a rudder power control module (PCM) manifold cracking and separating in the area of the yaw damper cavity end-cap. We are issuing this AD to prevent a hard-over of the rudder surface leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed runway excursion upon landing, in the event of failure of the lower or upper rudder PCM manifold.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months or 8,400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the replacement specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or the modification specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the upper and lower rudder PCMs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010.
(1) Replace any rudder PCM having Boeing part number (P/N) 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N 241700-1005) or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N 241700-1007) with rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-104 (Parker P/N 241700-9007).
(2) Modify any rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N 241700-1005) or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N 241700-1007).
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010, refers to Parker Service Bulletin 241700-27-333, dated January 26, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for modifying the upper and lower rudder PCM manifold access caps provided in Option 2 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N 241700-1005) or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N 241700-1007), on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6418; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010, approved for IBR March 19, 2012.
(2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A340-600 series airplanes. This AD requires modifying the fire extinguishing system from a three-bottles solution with 4 flow metering compact unit into a two-bottles solution with 2 flow metering systems equipped with upgraded water absorbing filter elements. This AD was prompted by reports of partial blockage of a certain water absorbing filter element. We are issuing this AD to prevent partial blockage of a certain water absorbing filter element, which could lead to reduction of the halon outflow, which leads to incapacity to maintain fire extinguishing agent concentration. Combined with fire, this condition could result in an uncontrolled fire in the affected compartment.
This AD becomes effective February 28, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of February 28, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 29, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0255, dated December 6, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During the qualification test campaign of the prototype Flow Metering Compact Unit (FMCU) Part Number (P/N) QA07907-03, partial blockage of the water absorbing filter element P/N QA06123 was observed several times. The blockage was created by carbon debris from the cartridge and from the burst disc of the Halon bottle.
This water absorbing filter element is part of the FMCU, which are part of the Lower Deck Cargo Compartment (LDCC) fire extinguisher system used in some A340-600 aeroplanes.
Blockage of the water absorbing filter element could lead to reduction of the Halon outflow, leading to incapacity to maintain fire extinguishing agent concentration. Combined with fire, this condition could result in an uncontrolled fire in the affected compartment, which would constitute an unsafe condition.
To avoid water absorbing filter element blockage, this [EASA] AD requires to convert the fire extinguishing system from the three-bottles-system with 4 FMCU into a two-bottles-system with 2 Flow Metering Systems (FMS) equipped with upgraded water absorbing filter elements.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-26-5020, including Appendix 01, dated June 3, 2010. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
There are no products of this type currently registered in the United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
1. Is not a ”significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ”significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
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 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 28, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus modification 47090 has been embodied in production; except those on which Airbus modification 51065 has been embodied in production.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26: Fire Protection.
This AD was prompted by reports of partial blockage of a certain water absorbing filter element. We are issuing this AD to prevent partial blockage of a certain water absorbing filter element, which could lead to reduction of the halon outflow, which leads to incapacity to maintain fire extinguishing agent concentration. Combined with fire, this condition could result in an uncontrolled fire in the affected compartment.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fire extinguishing system from a three-bottles solution with 4 flow metering compact unit, into a two-bottles solution with 2 flow metering systems equipped with upgraded water absorbing filter elements, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-26-5020, including Appendix 01, dated June 3, 2010.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2010-0255, dated December 6, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-26-5020, including Appendix 01,dated June 3, 2010; for related information.
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-26-5020, including Appendix 01, dated June 3, 2010.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revises Class D and Class E airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA. Additional controlled airspace is needed to accommodate aircraft departing and arriving under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at the airport. Also, the airspace designations are revised to show a new city location. This action is a result of the FAA's biennial review, along with a study of the Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport airspace area that further enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4517.
On October 31, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by revising Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA, creating additional airspace necessary for IFR departures and arrivals at the airport. This action, initiated by FAA's biennial review of the Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport airspace area, and based on results of a study conducted by the Los Angeles Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Task Force, and the Los Angeles Class B Workgroup, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also revises the airspace designation for Class D and Class E airspace, changing the city location from Los Angeles, CA, to Hawthorne, CA.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revises controlled airspace at Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, Hawthorne, CA.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within 2.6-mile radius of the Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, and that airspace 1.5 miles north and 2 miles south of the 229° bearing from the airport extending from the 2.6-mile radius to 3.8 miles southwest, and that airspace 2 miles north
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles north and 1.5 miles south of the 096° bearing from Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Municipal Airport, beginning 3.9 miles east of the airport extending to 6.3 miles east of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
On November 17, 2009, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a petition (Petition) requesting approval of NERC's interpretation of Requirement R1 of Commission-approved Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing). On December 16, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to accept the NERC proposed interpretation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1, and proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard through its Reliability Standards development process to address gaps in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were highlighted by the proposed interpretation. As a result of the comments received in response to the NOPR, in this order the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to accept NERC's proposed interpretation. In addition, as discussed below, the Commission accepts, in part, NERC's commitment to address the concerns in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were identified by the NOPR within the Reliability Standards development process, and directs, in part, that the concerns identified by the NOPR with regard to reclosing relays be addressed within the reinitiated PRC-005 revisions.
1. On November 17, 2009, NERC submitted the Petition requesting approval of NERC's interpretation of Requirement R1 of Commission-approved Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 (Transmission and Generation Protection System Maintenance and Testing). NERC developed the interpretation in response to a request for interpretation submitted to NERC by the Regional Entities Compliance Monitoring Processes Working Group (Working Group).
2. Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval.
3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO,
4. NERC's Rules of Procedure provide that a person that is “directly and materially affected” by Bulk-Power System reliability may request an interpretation of a Reliability Standard.
5. The purpose of PRC-005-1 is to “ensure all transmission and generation Protection Systems affecting the reliability of the Bulk Electric System (BES) are maintained and tested.” In particular, Requirement R1, requires that:
R1. Each Transmission Owner and any Distribution Provider that owns a transmission Protection System and each Generator Owner that owns a generation Protection System shall have a Protection System maintenance and testing program for Protection Systems that affect the reliability of the BES. The program shall include:
R1.1. Maintenance and testing intervals and their basis.
R1.2. Summary of maintenance and testing procedures.
6. NERC currently defines “Protection System” as follows: “Protective relays, associated communication systems, voltage and current sensing devices, station batteries and DC control circuitry.”
7. In the NERC Petition, NERC explains that it received a request from the Working Group for an interpretation of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1, Requirement R1, addressing five specific questions. Specifically, the Working Group questions and NERC proposed interpretations include:
8. In its Petition requesting that the Commission accept the proposed interpretation, NERC recognized that greater clarity to the requirement language in PRC-005-1a is necessary to provide a complete framework for maintenance and testing of equipment necessary to ensure the reliability of the Bulk Power System. In its Petition, NERC also stated that this activity is already underway in the scope of Project 2007-17—Protection System Maintenance and Testing, coupled with the revised definition of Protection System.
9. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to accept the NERC proposed interpretation of Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard PRC-005-1. In addition, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications to the PRC-005-1 Reliability Standard through its Reliability Standards development process to address gaps in the Protection System maintenance and testing standard that were highlighted by the proposed interpretation. The specific modifications are discussed below.
10. Comments on the Commission's proposed interpretation were received by the NERC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), ISO/RTO Council (IRC), American Public Power Association (APPA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), Cities of Anaheim and Riverside, California (Joint Cities), Northwest
11. As a result of the comments received in response to the proposal, the Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to accept NERC's proposed interpretation. As discussed below,
12. In the NOPR, the Commission noted a concern that the proposed interpretation may not include all components that serve in some protective capacity.
13. In their comments NERC, EEI, Joint Cities, Manitoba, NRECA, ITC, MidAmerican, and PSEG expressed varying levels of disagreement with the NOPR's proposed directive. The disagreements are based on a concern that the proposed directive will create an increase in scope that will capture many items not used in BES protection. NERC is concerned the scope of this proposed directive is so broad that any device that is installed on the Bulk-Power System to monitor conditions in any fashion may be included.
1. Describe the devices and functions (to include sudden pressure relays which trip for fault conditions) that should address FERC's concern; and
2. Propose minimum maintenance activities for such devices and maximum maintenance intervals, including the technical basis for each.
14. NERC states that these technical documents will address those protective relays that are necessary for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System and will allow for differentiation between protective relays that detect faults from other devices that monitor the health of the individual equipment and are advisory in nature (e.g., oil temperature). Following development of the above-referenced document(s), NERC states that it will “propose a new or revised standard (e.g. PRC-005) using the NERC Reliability Standards development process to include maintenance of such devices, including establishment of minimum maintenance activities and maximum maintenance intervals.”
15. The Commission accepts NERC's proposal, and directs NERC to file, within sixty days of publication of this Final Rule, a schedule for informational purposes regarding the development of the technical documents referenced above, including the identification of devices that are designed to sense or take action against any abnormal system condition that will affect reliable operation. NERC shall include in the informational filing a schedule for the development of the changes to the standard that NERC stated it would propose as a result of the above-referenced documents.
16. In the NOPR, the Commission noted that while a reclosing relay is not identified as a specific component of the Protection System, if it either is used in coordination with a Protection System to achieve or meet system performance requirements established in other Commission-approved Reliability Standards, or can exacerbate fault conditions when not properly maintained and coordinated, then excluding the maintenance and testing of these reclosing relays will result in a gap in the maintenance and testing of relays affecting the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
17. NERC, EEI, IRC, ITC MidAmerican, NRECA, and PSEG opposed the NOPR's directive to include reclosing relays. In general, commenters state that reclosing relays used for stability purposes are already included in maintenance and testing programs, and that reclosing relays that are primarily used to minimize customer outages times and maximize availability of system components should not be included. PSEG and MidAmerican contend that the NERC standards development process should be utilized to determine the maintenance and testing of those reclosing relays that affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
18. ISO/RTO contends that the primary purpose of reclosing relays is to allow more expeditious restoration of lost components of the system, not to maintain the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Therefore, ISO/RTO maintains that automatic reclosing
19. ITC agrees with the Commission's proposal that reclosing relays that are required for system stability should be maintained and tested under Requirement R1 of PRC-005-1. However, ITC contends that since most bulk electric system automatic reclosing relay systems are applied to minimize customer outage times and to maximize availability of system components, only some “high speed” reclosing relays will affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Therefore, ITC proposes that the Commission should direct NERC to draft specific requirements or selection criteria that should be used in identifying the types of re-closing relays for maintenance and testing under Requirement R1 of PRC-005-1.
20. While NRECA notes that reclosing relays operate to restore, not protect a system, NRECA also notes that there are reclosing schemes that directly affect and are required for automatic stability control of the system, but that such schemes are already covered under Special Protection Schemes that are subject to reliability standards. NRECA, notes that some transmission operators do not allow reclosing relays on the bulk power system to remove the possibility of reclosing in on a permanent fault, thus avoiding further potential damage to the bulk power system.
21. Similarly, NERC comments that in most cases reclosing relays cannot be relied on to meet system performance requirements because of the need to consider the impact of auto-reclosing into a permanent fault; however, NERC states that applications that may exist in which automatic restoration is used to meet system performance requirements following temporary faults. NERC comments that where reclosing relays are applied to meet performance requirements in approved NERC Reliability Standards, or where automatic restoration of service is fundamental to derivation of an Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROL), it is reasonable to require maintenance and testing of auto-reclosing relays.
22. As NERC and other commenters point out, reclosing relays are used in a broad range of applications; e.g., meet system performance requirements in approved Reliability Standards, derivation of IROLs, maintain system stability, minimize customer outage times, to maximize availability of system components, etc. While commenters acknowledge that reclosing relays have several applications, commenters also appear to be divided on which applications, if any, should be included in a maintenance and testing program.
23. The NOPR raised a concern that excluding the maintenance and testing of reclosing relays that can exacerbate fault conditions when not properly maintained and coordinated will result in a gap affecting Bulk-Power System reliability.
24. In the NOPR we stated that a misoperating or miscoordinated reclosing relay may result in the reclosure of a Bulk-Power System element back onto a fault or that a misoperating or miscoordinated reclosing relay may fail to operate after a fault has been cleared, thus failing to restore the element to service. As a result, the reliability of the Bulk-Power System would be affected. In addition, misoperated or miscoordinated relays may result in damage to the Bulk-Power System. For example, a misoperation or miscoordination of a reclosing relay causing the reclosing of Bulk-Power System facilities into a permanent fault can subject generators to excessive shaft torques and winding stresses and expose circuit breakers to systems conditions less than optimal for correct operation, potentially damaging the circuit breaker.
25. While some commenters argue that reclosing relays do not affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, the record supports our concern. For example, we note NERC's concern regarding the “* * * need to consider the impact of autoreclosing into a permanent fault.” We also note NRECA's comments that “* * * some transmission operators do not allow reclosing on the bulk electric system facilities to remove the opportunity of closing in on a permanent fault” and “* * * by its [automatic reclosing] use a utility understands the potential for further damage that may occur by reclosing.”
26. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is important to maintain and test reclosing relays that may affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. We agree with ITC that specific requirements or selection criteria should be used to identify reclosing relays that affect the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. As MidAmerican suggests, the standard should be modified, through the
27. We note that the original project to revise Reliability Standard PRC-005 failed a recirculation ballot in July of 2011. The project was subsequently reinitiated to continue the efforts to develop Reliability Standard PRC-005-2. Given that the project to draft proposed revisions to Reliability Standard PRC-005-1 continues in this reinitiated effort, and the importance of maintaining and testing reclosing relays, we direct NERC to include maintenance and testing of reclosing relays that can affect the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, as discussed above, within these reinitiated efforts to revise Reliability Standard PRC-005.
28. In the NOPR, the Commission explained its understanding that a maintenance and testing program for DC control circuitry would include all components of DC control circuitry necessary for ensuring Reliable Operation of the Bulk-Power System, and that not establishing the specific requirements of such a maintenance and testing program results in a gap in the maintenance and testing of Protection System components.
29. Joint Cities, MidAmerican, and NRECA expressed concern that the NOPR's directive is too broad and unnecessarily burdensome. NERC agrees that maintenance and testing should be required for all DC control circuitry.
30. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.
31. As stated above, the Commission previously approved, in Order No. 693, the Reliability Standard that is the subject of the current Final Rule. This Final Rule accepts an interpretation of the currently approved Reliability Standard. The interpretation of the current Reliability Standard at issue in this final rule is not expected to change the reporting burden or the information collection requirements. The informational filing required of NERC is part of currently active collection FERC-725 and does not require additional approval by OMB.
32. We will submit this final rule to OMB for informational purposes only.
33. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
34. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
35. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
36. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
38. This Final Rule is effective March 14, 2012. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Applicability, Mandatory reliability standards, Availability of reliability standards.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially disapprove State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions and new rules as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010 and May 28, 2003. The revisions contain new rules in Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) that pertain to the issuance of Montana air quality permits, in addition to other minor administrative changes to other subchapters of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM). In this action, EPA is approving those portions of the rules that are approvable and disapproving those portions of the rules that are inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The initials
(iv) The words
EPA is taking final action to approve new rule ARM 17.8.745 as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010. Montana adopted this rule on May 14, 2010 and it became State effective on May 28, 2010. We are also taking final action to approve all references to ARM 17.8.745, submitted by Montana on May 28, 2003. Specifically, the following phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) “except when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745” and (2) “except as provided in ARM 17.8.745,” the phrase “and 17.8.745” in ARM 17.8.743(1) and the phrase “the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a
ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on June 25, 2010, and all references to ARM 17.8.745, as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's minor New Source Review (NSR) regulations. ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), as submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003, does not meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's minor NSR regulations.
EPA proposed an action for the above SIP revision submittals on September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59338). We accepted comments from the public on this proposal from September 27, 2011, until October 26, 2011. A summary of the comments received and our evaluation thereof is discussed in section III below. In the proposed rule, we described our basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the proposed rule, and sections III and IV of this preamble, for additional information regarding this final action.
EPA reviews a SIP revision submission for its compliance with the Act and EPA regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted Program based upon the regulations and associated record that have been submitted and are currently before EPA. In order for EPA to ensure that Montana has a Program that meets the requirements of the CAA, the State must demonstrate the Program is as stringent as the Act and the implementing regulations discussed in this notice. For example, EPA must have sufficient information to make a finding that the new Program will ensure protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the Montana SIP control strategies, as required by section 110(l) of the Act.
The provisions in these submittals were not submitted to meet a mandatory
The Amended Consent Decree in
The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require
Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”
The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered as “any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.” A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO
The State's May 28, 2003 submittal included ARM 17.8.743, which was a new rule. ARM 17.8.743(1) describes those sources that are required to obtain a Montana air quality permit. ARM 17.8.743(1) provides that any new or modified facility or emitting unit that has the potential to emit more than 25 tons per year of any airborne pollutant, except lead,
This notice contains EPA's final action on Montana rules relating to the permitting threshold for asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b). In our July 8, 2011 rulemaking, EPA approved of all of new section ARM 17.8.743(1), except for the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” where the
The State's June 25, 2010 submittal included new rule ARM 17.8.745. This revision request for ARM 17.8.745, which supercedes the State's May 28, 2003 submittal for ARM 17.8.745, creates an exemption from the requirement to obtain an air quality permit or permit modification for certain changes at a permitted facility that did not increase the facility's potential emissions of an air pollutant by more than five tons per year, when conditions specified in the rule were met.
During the State's 1996 and 1999 rulemaking process we expressed concerns with the
EPA did not receive comments on our September 26, 2011
We evaluated ARM 17.8.745 using the following: (1) The statutory requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to include a minor New Source Review (NSR) program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved; (2) the regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, including section 51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS; and (3) the statutory requirements under CAA section 110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere (“noninterference”) with attainment of the NAAQS, Rate of Progress (ROP), RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis to determine what the appropriate demonstration of noninterference with attainment of the NAAQS, rate of progress, RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA should entail. In this instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the approval of new section ARM 17.8.745 would not violate section 110(l) of the CAA (see docket number EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0100); this is also referred to as a “demonstration of noninterference” with attainment and maintenance under CAA section 110(l). In addition to the State's demonstration submitted on June 25, 2010, EPA conducted its own analysis utilizing SIP-approved attainment plans, past rulemakings, stipulations, consent decrees, air modeling data and air monitoring data. In EPA's proposed notice (76 FR 59338), we considered the State's demonstration of noninterference, our own analysis, the nature of the permitting requirement, its potential impact on the air quality in the area and the air quality of the area in which the permitting requirements apply. We analyzed this information pollutant by pollutant in order to make a determination that new rule 17.8.745 is consistent with CAA requirements; in particular, it's impact on compliance with NAAQS standards. The scope and rigor of the demonstration of noninterference conducted in this notice is appropriate given the air quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision on air quality and the pollutants affected.
The State's technical support document (TSD) (see docket) contains the State's regulatory history of the
EPA is disapproving the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted by the State of Montana on May 28, 2003. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each implementation plan include a program to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources, including a permit program as required by parts C and D of title I of the Act, as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Parts C and D, which pertain to PSD and nonattainment, respectively, address major NSR programs for stationary sources, and the permitting program for “nonmajor” (or “minor”) stationary sources is addressed by section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. We generally refer to the latter program as the “minor NSR” program. A minor stationary source is a source whose “potential to emit” is lower than the major source applicability threshold for a particular pollutant defined in the applicable major NSR program.
Therefore, we evaluated the submitted revisions and new rules using the federal regulations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which require each state to include a minor NSR program in its SIP.
In addition, we reviewed the State's regulations for compliance with the Act. Generally, SIPs must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing SIP requirements (see section 110(l) and 193 of the Act).
EPA is disapproving the revision to ARM 17.8.743(1)(b), which contains a modification size cutoff (15 tons per year) that the State proposes as
Based on the above discussion, EPA finds that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.745 would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act (see proposed notice for this action and TSD for basis); and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve ARM 17.8.745 as submitted on June 25, 2010 by the State of Montana.
We are approving new section ARM 17.8.745; and thus, we are also approving all references to ARM 17.8.745. This includes: The phrases in 17.8.740(8)(a) and (c), respectively, (1) “except when a permit is not required under ARM 17.8.745” and (2) “except as provided in ARM 17.8.745” and the phrase “and 17.8.745” in 17.8.743(1), submitted on May 28, 2003; and the phrase “the emission increase meets the criteria in ARM 17.8.745 for a de minimis change not requiring a permit” in 17.8.764(1)(b) and (4), submitted on May 28, 2003.
Based on the above discussion, EPA is finds no basis to determine that the addition of new rule ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of Montana and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act; and thus, is not approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to disapprove the phrase “asphalt concrete plants and mineral crushers” in ARM 17.8.743(1)(b) submitted on May 28, 2003.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(72) On May 28, 2003 the State of Montana submitted revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), 17.8.740,
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.740,
(B) Administrative Rules of Montana, 17.8.745,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0800 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On October 6, 2011 (76 FR 62004), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment as follows.
Carla D. Takemoto, California Air Resources Board, letter dated October 7, 2011 clarified that while amendments to CARB Test Method 310 was included in the January 28, 2011 submittal package to EPA, CARB did not intend for Method 310 to be acted on as a SIP revision. The amended test method replaces a previous version of Method 310 that was separately approved from the SIP process by EPA.
EPA agrees with CARB's clarification that the August 6, 2010 version of Method 310 replaces the previously approved Method 310. We also agree that the revised test method can be used to show compliance with California's Consumer Products rule. EPA plans to approve the revised test method in a separate action that does not incorporate it into the SIP.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(406) New and amended regulations were submitted on January 28, 2011, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0761 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at
Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3576,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On October 6, 2011 (76 FR 62002), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(388) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(
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
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
FMCSA corrects the hours of service (HOS) final rule published on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81143). This correction notice corrects the amendatory language or guidance to legal editors of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on the proper codification of the December 27, 2011 rule. This notice does not change, in any manner, the regulatory text.
This final rule is effective February 27, 2012.
Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4325.
The amendatory instruction for paragraph (b)
In FR Doc. 2011-32696, appearing on page 81134 in the
On page 81186, in the third column, in Part 395—Hours of Service of Drivers, in amendment 8a, the instruction, “8. Amend § 395.1 as follows: a. Revise the paragraph (b) heading and paragraph (b)(1) introductory text;” is corrected to read, “8. Amend § 395.1 as follows: a. Revise the paragraph (b) heading and revise paragraph (b)(1);”
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a mistake in the amendatory language in the final rule for Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan.
Effective March 1, 2012.
Aja Szumylo, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9195.
The final rule for Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish (MSB) Fishery Management Plan was published in the
The final regulations in Amendment 11 revised portions of 50 CFR 648.4; the new regulatory text will be effective on March 1, 2012. The amendatory language for § 648.4 on page 68653 of the final rule has instructions for a revision of paragraph § 648.4 (a)(5)(iii). However, the amendatory language should have also included instructions for a revision of § 648.4 (a)(5)(iv) and the addition of § 648.4 (a)(5)(v). The text for these paragraphs is listed on page 68655 of the final rule. As published, the error in the amendatory language would result in the removal of § 648.4 (a)(5)(iv) and § 648.4 (a)(5)(v) on March 1, 2012. These paragraphs describe the Atlantic mackerel incidental catch permit and the MSB party and charter boat permit. This correction adjusts the amendatory instruction 2 for § 648.4 to allow for the designation of paragraphs (a)(5)(iv) and (v) in time for the March 1, 2012, effective date. This correction does not change the intent or application of the measures described in the proposed and final rule.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action because notice and comment would be unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest. Notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest because this action simply makes the text of the codified regulations consistent with the text in the final rule, and makes corrections to accurately reflect the intent of the final rule. This correction eliminates inconsistencies between the regulatory text contained in the final rule and the codified regulations, and therefore eliminates any confusion that the inconsistency might create for the public. No aspect of this action is controversial and no change in operating practices in the fishery is required from those intended in the final rule.
For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If this rule is not implemented by March 1, 2012, two paragraphs of regulations regarding permit requirements would be removed, which could cause confusion and would be inconsistent with the final rule.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In the
“2. In § 648.4, paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (a)(5)(iv) are revised, and paragraphs (a)(5)(v), and (c)(2)(vii) are added to read as follows:”
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service is amending its regulations for the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program to clarify that the Agency guarantee does not cover default and penalty interest or late charges. The Agency's regulations are currently silent on this issue. However, it has always been the Agency's policy not to pay out additional cost for default interest, penalty interest, and late charges calculated and submitted on a final report of loss claim under the Loan Note Guarantee. The Agency does permit the lender to charge default interest with prior Agency approval. By defining “interest” in the definition section of the regulation and clarifying the Agency's policy as it relates to default interest, penalty interest, and late charge, this will avert any misunderstandings.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before March 14, 2012.
You may submit comments to this proposed rule by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection during regular work hours at the 300 7th Street, SW., 7th Floor address listed above.
Mr. David Lewis, Rural Development, Business Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 3221, Washington, DC 20250-3221; email:
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program is 10.768. The Catalog of Federal DomesticAssistance Program number assigned to the Biorefinery Assistance is 10.865. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program number assigned to the Rural Energy for America Program is 10.868.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” Rural Development has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Consultation will be completed at the time of the action performed.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. Additionally, (1) all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to the rule; and (3) administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before litigation against the Department or its agencies may be initiated, in accordance with the regulations of the National Appeals Division of USDA at 7 CFR part 11.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency made this determination based on the fact that this regulation only impacts those who choose to participate in the program. Small entity applicants will not be impacted to a greater extent than large entity applicants.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This executive order imposes requirements on Rural Development in the development of regulatory policies
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection activities associated with this rule are covered under the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, OMB Number: 0570-0017.
This rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and other purposes.
The Agency reviewed 7 CFR 4279.2 which is composed of two paragraphs, the first of which is pertinent. Section 4279.2(a) discusses the definitions, which has thirty seven terms use in the Guaranteed Loanmaking. The definitions and abbreviations contained in § 4279.2 also apply to the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Servicing regulations and, unless otherwise noted, the Biorefinery Assistance Loan Program and the Rural Energy for America Program. Currently, the Agency regulations do not define “interest”, “default interest”, “penalty interest” or “late charges”. However, it is the Agency's policy not to pay out additional cost for default interest, penalty interest and late charges calculated and submitted on a final report of loss claim under the Loan Note Guarantee. However, the lender's Promissory Note may contain provisions for default, penalty interest, or late charges with prior Agency approval. These charges must be customary and reasonable. Accordingly, the Agency is making the proposed changes in this rule.
The Agency is revising § 4279.2(a), to address the situation discussed in the “Background” section. Specifically, the Agency is adding a paragraph in § 4287.2(a), after the term “Holder” and before the term Interim Financing, which will define “Interest.” The change being made by this rule is to clarify that “interest” does not include default or penalty interest, or late fees. The lender may charge the borrower these fees with prior Agency approval.
Business and industry, Loan programs, Rural development assistance.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter XLII, title 7, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 4279 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1932(a); and 7 U.S.C. 1989.
2. Paragraph (a) of § 4279.2 is amended by adding a new definition of
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting and availability of the framework document.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering establishing energy conservation standards for residential wine chillers and other residential refrigeration products. DOE will hold an informal public meeting to discuss and receive comments on its planned analytical approach and issues that it will address in this proceeding. DOE welcomes written comments and relevant data from the public on any subject within the scope of this notice. To inform stakeholders and facilitate this process, DOE has prepared a framework document that details the analytical approach and identifies several issues on which DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments. The framework document is available at
DOE will hold a public meeting on February 22, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Washington, DC. Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the public meeting via webinar. To participate via webinar, participants must notify DOE no later than Wednesday, February 15, 2012. Registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on the following Web site
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures, requiring a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the public meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 to initiate the necessary procedures.
Any comments submitted must identify the framework document for Energy Conservation Standards for Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, and provide docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-AC51. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
A link to the docket Web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, please contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone: (202) 287-1317. Email:
Title III, Part B
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA and established energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (residential refrigeration products), as well as requirements for determining whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE published a final rule in the
After the completion of these two rulemaking cycles, stakeholders submitted a petition in 2004 requesting that DOE conduct another rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers. In April 2005, DOE granted the petition and conducted a limited set of analyses to assess the potential energy savings and potential economic benefit of new standards. DOE issued a report in October 2005 detailing the analyses, which examined the technological and economic feasibility of new standards set at ENERGY STAR levels effective in 2005 for the two most popular product classes of refrigerators: top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD features and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD features.
In October 2005, DOE published draft data sheets containing the projected energy savings potential for refrigerator-freezers as part of its fiscal year 2006 schedule-setting process. The data sheets were based on the October 2005 draft technical report analyzing potential new amended energy conservation standards for residential refrigerator-freezers described above. The analysis was not extended to all refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product classes because of the large proportion of the market represented by the two product classes analyzed in detail (i.e. refrigerator-
EISA required DOE to publish a final rule to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for residential refrigeration products manufactured starting in 2014. Consistent with this requirement, DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 27, 2010. 75 FR 59470. Subsequently, on September 15, 2011, DOE issued a final rule that established energy conservation standards for over 40 classes of residential refrigeration products.
In the preamble to the final rule, DOE discussed the issue of wine chiller coverage. See, e.g. 76 FR at 57534. The test procedure final rule and interim final rule distinguished between those products designed to safely store fresh food and those that were not. See 75 FR 78810, 78817 (Dec. 16, 2010). Wine chillers are not treated as refrigerators because they are not designed to be capable of achieving compartment temperatures below the 39 °F limit specified in the definition for “electric refrigerator.”
The framework document explains the issues, analyses, and process that DOE is considering for the development of energy efficiency standards for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products. An accompanying public meeting will be held that will focus on the analyses and issues contained in various sections of the framework document. DOE plans to present and solicit discussion regarding these issues. DOE will also make a brief presentation on the process that it plans to follow when evaluating potential standards for these products.
DOE encourages anyone who wishes to participate in the public meeting to obtain and review the framework document and to be prepared to discuss its contents. A copy of the draft framework document is available at
However, public meeting participants need not limit their comments to the topics identified in the framework document. DOE is also interested in receiving views on other relevant issues that participants believe would affect energy conservation standards for these products. DOE invites all interested parties, whether or not they participate in the public meeting, to submit in writing by March 14, 2012, comments and information on matters addressed in the framework document and on other matters relevant to consideration of standards for wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products.
DOE will conduct the public meeting in an informal, facilitated, conference style. There shall be no discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market shares, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. antitrust laws. A court reporter will record the minutes of the meeting, after which a transcript will be available for purchase from the court reporter and placed on the DOE Web site at
After the public meeting and the close of the comment period for the framework document, DOE will begin collecting data, conducting the analyses as discussed at the public meeting, and reviewing public comments.
Anyone who wishes to participate in the public meeting, receive meeting materials, or be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about wine chillers and miscellaneous refrigeration products should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We propose to revise and reorganize the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate cases involving visual disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The proposed revisions reflect our program experience and address adjudicator questions we have received since we last revised these criteria in 2006. These proposed revisions reflect guidance we have issued in response to adjudicator questions and will ensure more timely adjudication of claims in which we evaluate visual impairments that involve a loss of visual acuity or loss of visual fields.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them by no later than April 13, 2012.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2010-0078 so that we may
Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available. We strongly urge you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Cheryl Williams, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We last published final rules revising the criteria that we use to evaluate visual disorders in the
Most of the proposed introductory text is substantively the same as the current introductory text. We propose to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the introductory text. We also propose to expand some sections to clarify the existing guidance and to include additional acceptable testing for evaluating a person's visual field loss. In the following paragraphs, we describe the significant changes we propose to make to the introductory text of the adult listings for evaluating visual disorders in part A of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404, using the titles of the proposed sections.
In proposed 2.00A2a, we would add the word “central” before “visual acuity” to correct the definition of statutory blindness in current 2.00A2. We would also add a reference to proposed 2.00A5, which explains visual acuity testing requirements. In proposed 2.00A2b, we would add a reference to proposed 2.00A6, which explains our visual field testing requirements. In proposed 2.00A2c, we would add proposed listings 2.04A and 2.04B to our guidance in current 2.00A2, which explains that if your visual disorder medically equals the criteria of 2.02 or 2.03A, or meets or medically equals 2.03B, 2.03C, or 2.04, we will find that you have a disability if your visual disorder also meets the duration requirement.
In proposed 2.00A4, we would remove current 2.00A4b, which describes cortical visual disorders, because it does not provide useful guidance to adjudicators on how to evaluate vision loss due to cortical visual disorders. While we added current 2.00A4b when we last published final rules making comprehensive revisions to section 2.00 on November 20, 2006,
We propose to make the following changes to current 2.00A5:
• Provide guidance in proposed 2.00A5a(ii) that explains how we use visual acuity measurements not recorded in Snellen notation, such as counts fingers (CF) or no light perception (NLP), to evaluate your vision loss. This guidance is in response to questions from our adjudicators.
• Add the guidance in current 2.00A8a, which explains how we use test charts that measure visual acuity between 20/100 and 20/200, to proposed 2.00A5b.
• Provide guidance in proposed 2.00A5d, which we currently provide in our internal operating instructions, that explains how we use the results of cycloplegic refraction.
We propose to make the following changes to current 2.00A6:
• Combine the guidance in current 2.00A6a(i) and 2.00A6a(ii) in proposed 2.00A6a, with one exception. As we explain below, we would move the guidance that explains our requirements for acceptable perimeters in current 2.00A6a(ii) to proposed section 2.00A8.
• Move the guidance on visual field testing requirements in current 2.00A6a(iii), (vi), and (vii), to proposed 2.00A6b(i), (ii), and (iii), respectively.
• Revise our guidance on automated static threshold perimeters to remove specific references to perimeter manufacturers. In the preamble to our final rules published in the
• Move the guidance in current 2.00A6a(iv), which explains how we evaluate vision loss under 2.03A, to proposed 2.00A6c, and add the Octopus 32 test as an acceptable test.
• Move the guidance in current 2.00A6a(v), which explains how we evaluate vision loss under 2.03B, to proposed 2.00A6d. We would add the definition of the term mean deviation (or defect), abbreviated as MD, which we use in current and proposed 2.03B but do not define. We would explain that Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) tests report the MD as a negative number and, therefore, we use the absolute value of the MD when determining whether the person's visual field loss meets the listing.
• Move the guidance in current 2.00A6a(viii), which explains when we can use visual field measurements obtained using kinetic perimetry to evaluate vision loss, to proposed 2.00A6e.
• Move the guidance on visual field screening tests in current 2.00A6a(ix) to proposed 2.00A6f.
• Move the guidance on the use of corrective lenses in visual field testing in current 2.00A6b to proposed 2.00A6g.
• Move the guidance on scotomas in current 2.00A8c to proposed 2.00A6h.
We propose to make the following changes to current 2.00A7:
• Introduce “value” as a term to express visual efficiency, in addition to the term “percentage,” in proposed 2.00A7a, which we explain in the paragraphs below.
• Add current Table 1 (
• Expand current 2.00A7b and redesignate as proposed 2.00A7c. A person's visual field efficiency can be expressed as a percentage (using the visual field determined by kinetic perimetry) or as a value (using the MD determined by automated static threshold perimetry). We would explain that a visual field efficiency percentage of 20 is comparable to an MD of 22, which we currently explain in training.
• Add guidance in proposed 2.00A7c(i) on how to calculate visual field efficiency value using the MD determined by automated static threshold perimetry, which we currently provide in our internal operating instructions.
• Redesignate current 2.00A7b as proposed 2.00A7c(ii).
• Add current Table 2 (
• Expand current 2.00A7c and redesignate as proposed 2.00A7d. We would add an example for calculating visual efficiency value in proposed 2.00A7d(i). In proposed 2.00A7d(ii), we would revise the example for calculating visual efficiency percentage, which is in current 2.00A7c, to simply state more clearly how we convert a decimal value to a percentage.
We propose to move the guidance on acceptable perimeters in current 2.00A6a(ii)
We propose to remove 2.00A8b, which describes blepharospasm, because it does not provide useful guidance to adjudicators on how to evaluate vision loss due to blepharospasm and has led to repeated questions from our adjudicators. As we explained earlier with cortical visual disorders, we intend to provide guidance for evaluating a person's vision loss due to blepharospasm and any other visual disorders that may result in vision loss or a loss in visual functioning in our internal operating instructions and training.
In the following paragraphs, we describe the substantive changes to the adult listings for evaluating visual disorders in part A of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404. We propose to:
• Add 2.04A to evaluate visual efficiency determined using the MD from acceptable automated static threshold perimetry.
• Redesignate current 2.04, which we use to evaluate visual efficiency determined by kinetic perimetry, as proposed 2.04B.
We propose to clarify, simplify, and reorganize the introductory text in the childhood rules as in the adult rules. Since these are conforming changes, we do not summarize them here. We also propose to move the examples in current 102.00A5b(iii) to proposed 102.02B. We believe it is more helpful to adjudicators to include these examples directly in the listing to which they apply.
The Act authorizes us to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to implement them. Sections 205(a), 702(a)(5), and 1631(d)(1).
If we publish these proposed rules as final rules, they will remain in effect for 5 years after the date they become effective, unless we extend them, or revise and issue them again.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on these proposed rules, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding more tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?
• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rules easier to understand, e.g., grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing?
We will not use these rules until we evaluate public comments and publish final rules in the
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this NPRM meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB reviewed it.
We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
These proposed rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure; Blind, Disability benefits; Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 404, subpart P as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
2. Amend appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 by:
a. Revising item 3 of the introductory text before part A;
b. Revising section 2.00A and sections 2.01 through 2.04 in part A; and
c. Revising section 102.00A and sections 102.01 through 102.04 in part B.
The revisions read as follows:
3. Special Senses and Speech (2.00 and 102.00): [Insert date 5 years from the effective date of the final rules].
2.00Special Senses and Speech
A.
1.
2.
a. The Act defines blindness as central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens. We use your best-corrected central visual acuity for distance in the better eye when we determine if this definition is met. (For visual acuity testing requirements, see 2.00A5.)
b. The Act also provides that an eye that has a visual field limitation such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees is considered as having a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less. (For visual field testing requirements, see 2.00A6.)
c. You have statutory blindness only if your visual disorder meets the criteria of 2.02 or 2.03A. In order to find that you have statutory blindness under the law for a period of disability and for payment of disability insurance benefits, your blindness under 2.02 or 2.03A must also meet the duration requirement (see §§ 404.1509 and 404.1581). You do not have statutory blindness if your visual disorder medically equals the criteria of 2.02 or 2.03A or meets or medically equals the criteria of 2.03B, 2.03C, 2.04A, or 2.04B because your disability is based on criteria other than those in the statutory definition of blindness. If your visual disorder medically equals the criteria of 2.02 or 2.03A or meets or medically equals the criteria of 2.03B, 2.03C, 2.04A, or 2.04B, we will find that you are under a disability if your visual disorder also meets the duration requirement (see §§ 404.1509 and 416.909 of this chapter).
3.
4.
5.
a.
(i) Your best-corrected central visual acuity for distance is usually measured by determining what you can see from 20 feet. If your visual acuity is measured for a distance other than 20 feet, we will convert it to a 20-foot measurement. For example, if your visual acuity is measured at 10 feet and is reported as 10/40, we will convert this measurement to 20/80.
(ii) A visual acuity recorded as CF (counts fingers), HM (hand motion only), LP or LPO (light perception or light perception only), or NLP (no light perception) indicates that no optical correction will improve your visual acuity. If your central visual acuity in an eye is recorded as CF, HM, LP or LPO, or NLP, we will determine that your best-corrected central visual acuity is 20/200 or less in that eye.
(iii) We will not use the results of pinhole testing or automated refraction acuity to determine your best-corrected central visual acuity. These tests provide an estimate of potential visual acuity but not an actual measurement of your best-corrected central visual acuity.
b.
c.
d.
e.
6.
a.
b.
(i) The test must use a white size III Goldmann stimulus and a 31.5 apostilb (asb) white background (or a 10 candela per square meter (cd/m
(ii) We measure the extent of your visual field loss by determining the portion of the visual field in which you can see a white III4e stimulus. The “III” refers to the standard Goldmann test stimulus size III (4 mm
(iii) In automated static threshold perimetry, the intensity of the stimulus varies. The intensity of the stimulus is expressed in decibels (dB). A perimeter's maximum stimulus luminance is usually assigned the value 0 dB. We need to determine the dB level that corresponds to a 4e intensity for the particular perimeter being used. We will then use the dB printout to determine which points you see at a 4e intensity level (a “seeing point”). For example:
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
7.
a.
b.
c.
(i)
(ii)
d.
(i)
(ii)
8.
a. Uses optical projection to generate the test stimuli.
b. Has an internal normative database for automatically comparing your performance with that of the general population.
c. Has a statistical analysis package that is able to calculate visual field indices, particularly mean deviation or mean defect.
d. Demonstrates the ability to correctly detect visual field loss and correctly identify normal visual fields.
e. Demonstrates good test-retest reliability.
f. Has undergone clinical validation studies by three or more independent laboratories with results published in peer-reviewed ophthalmic journals.
2.02
2.03
A. The widest diameter subtending an angle around the point of fixation no greater than 20 degrees.
B. An MD of 22 decibels or greater, determined by automated static threshold perimetry that measures the central 30 degrees of the visual field (see 2.00A6d).
C. A visual field efficiency of 20 percent or less, determined by kinetic perimetry (see 2.00A7c).
2.04
A. A visual efficiency value of 1.00 or greater after best correction (see 2.00A7d(i)).
B. A visual efficiency percentage of 20 or less after best correction (see 2.00A7d(ii)).
A.
1.
2.
a. The Act defines blindness as central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a correcting lens. We use your best-corrected central visual acuity for distance in the better eye when we determine if this definition is met. (For visual acuity testing requirements, see 102.00A5.)
b. The Act also provides that an eye that has a visual field limitation such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees is considered as having a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less. (For visual field testing requirements, see 102.00A6.)
c. You have statutory blindness only if your visual disorder meets the criteria of 102.02A, 102.02B, or 102.03A. You do not have statutory blindness if your visual disorder medically equals the criteria of 102.02A, 102.02B, or 102.03A or meets or medically equals the criteria of 102.03B, 102.03C, 102.04A, or 102.04B because your disability is based on criteria other than those in the statutory definition of blindness. If your visual disorder medically equals the criteria of 102.02A, 102.02B, or 102.03A or meets or medically equals the criteria of 102.03B, 102.03C, 102.04A, or 102.04B, we will find that you are under a disability if your visual disorder also meets the duration requirement (see § 416.909 of this chapter).
3.
4.
5.
a.
(i) Your best-corrected central visual acuity for distance is usually measured by determining what you can see from 20 feet. If your visual acuity is measured for a distance other than 20 feet, we will convert it to a 20-foot measurement. For example, if your visual acuity is measured at 10 feet and is reported as 10/40, we will convert this measurement to 20/80.
(ii) A visual acuity recorded as CF (counts fingers), HM (hand motion only), LP or LPO (light perception or light perception only), or NLP (no light perception) indicates that no optical correction will improve your visual acuity. If your central visual acuity in an eye is recorded as CF, HM, LP or LPO, or NLP, we will determine that your best-corrected central visual acuity is 20/200 or less in that eye.
(iii) We will not use the results of pinhole testing or automated refraction acuity to determine your best-corrected central visual acuity. These tests provide an estimate of potential visual acuity but not an actual measurement of your best-corrected central visual acuity.
(iv) Very young children, such as infants and toddlers, cannot participate in testing using Snellen methodology or other comparable testing. If you are unable to participate in testing using Snellen methodology or other comparable testing, we will consider clinical findings of your fixation and visual-following behavior. If both these behaviors are absent, we will consider the anatomical findings or the results of neuroimaging, electroretinogram, or visual evoked response (VER) testing when this testing has been performed.
b.
(i) Children between the ages of 3 and 5 often cannot identify the letters on a Snellen or other letter test chart. Specialists with expertise in assessment of childhood vision use alternate methods for measuring visual acuity in young children. We consider alternate methods, for example, the Landolt C test or the tumbling-E test, which are used to evaluate young children who are unable to participate in testing using Snellen methodology, to be comparable to testing using Snellen methodology.
(ii) Most test charts that use Snellen methodology do not have lines that measure visual acuity between 20/100 and 20/200. Some test charts, such as the Bailey-Lovie or the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) used mostly in research settings, have such lines. If your visual acuity
c.
d.
e.
6.
a.
b.
(i) The test must use a white size III Goldmann stimulus and a 31.5 apostilb (asb) white background (or a 10 candela per square meter (cd/m
(ii) We measure the extent of your visual field loss by determining the portion of the visual field in which you can see a white III4e stimulus. The “III” refers to the standard Goldmann test stimulus size III (4 mm
(iii) In automated static threshold perimetry, the intensity of the stimulus varies. The intensity of the stimulus is expressed in decibels (dB). A perimeter's maximum stimulus luminance is usually assigned the value 0 dB. We need to determine the dB level that corresponds to a 4e intensity for the particular perimeter being used. We will then use the dB printout to determine which points you see at a 4e intensity level (a “seeing point”). For example:
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
7.
a.
b.
c.
(i)
(ii)
d.
(i)
(ii)
8.
a. Uses optical projection to generate the test stimuli.
b. Has an internal normative database for automatically comparing your performance with that of the general population.
c. Has a statistical analysis package that is able to calculate visual field indices, particularly mean deviation or mean defect.
d. Demonstrates the ability to correctly detect visual field loss and correctly identify normal visual fields.
e. Demonstrates good test-retest reliability.
f. Has undergone clinical validation studies by three or more independent laboratories with results published in peer-reviewed ophthalmic journals.
102.02
A. Remaining vision in the better eye after best correction is 20/200 or less.
B. An inability to participate in visual acuity testing using Snellen methodology or other comparable testing, clinical findings that fixation and visual-following behavior are absent in the better eye, and one of the following:
1. Abnormal anatomical findings indicating a visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye (such as the presence of Stage III or worse retinopathy of prematurity despite surgery, hypoplasia of the optic nerve, albinism with macular aplasia, or bilateral optic atrophy); or
2. Abnormal neuroimaging documenting damage to the cerebral cortex which would be expected to prevent the development of a visual acuity better than 20/200 in the better eye (such as neuroimaging showing bilateral encephalomyelitis or bilateral encephalomalacia); or
3. Abnormal electroretinogram documenting the presence of Leber's congenital amaurosis or achromatopsia in the better eye; or
4. An absent response to VER testing in the better eye.
102.03
A. The widest diameter subtending an angle around the point of fixation no greater than 20 degrees.
B. An MD of 22 decibels or greater, determined by automated static threshold perimetry that measures the central 30 degrees of the visual field (see 102.00A6d).
C. A visual field efficiency of 20 percent or less, determined by kinetic perimetry (see 102.00A7c).
102.04
A. A visual efficiency value of 1.00 or greater after best correction (see 102.00A7d(i)).
B. A visual efficiency percentage of 20 or less after best correction (see 102.00A7d(ii)).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Withdrawal of proposed rule.
This notice withdraws HUD's August 2011 rule that proposed to amend HUD's regulations to enable the direct lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to seek approval to participate in the FHA mortgage insurance programs as approved mortgagees and lenders.
The proposed rule is withdrawn February 13, 2012.
Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-1515 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
On August 26, 2011, at 76 FR 53362, HUD published a proposed rule that would enable the direct lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to seek approval to participate in the FHA mortgage insurance programs as FHA-approved mortgagees and lenders. In the proposed rule, HUD noted that recent difficulties in mortgage finance markets indicated reduced availability of housing credit in rural areas. HUD therefore proposed to extend FHA mortgagee and lender eligibility to the lending institutions of the Farm Credit System to provide an additional avenue for mortgage financing in rural areas. The Farm Credit System is a federally chartered network of borrower-owned lending institutions composed of cooperatives and related service organizations. The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on October 25, 2011. HUD received approximately 27 substantive public comments in response to the August 26, 2011, proposed rule. Certain comments were identical in substance, having been submitted as part of mailing campaigns. The public comments on this rule can be found at
The commenters were almost evenly divided in their support of and opposition to the rule. Those commenters that supported the rule stated that there was indeed a need for available housing credit in rural areas and that allowing Farm Credit lending institutions to be FHA-approved lenders would aid in the necessary extension of credit. The commenters stated that the Farm Credit System has been a source of consistent and reliable credit for rural homeowners and that the ability to provide the option of FHA programs to families in rural areas will help ensure that the borrowing needs of rural families are met. Those commenters that opposed the rule stated that there was no need to expand FHA mortgage availability to Farm Credit member institutions; that the banking community was satisfactorily meeting the need for credit in rural areas. The commenters opposing the rule also stated that it was their view that approval of Farm Credit lending institutions to originate FHA insured loans runs afoul of the Administration's proposal to reduce government involvement in the housing finance market.
Upon consideration of the issues raised by public comments, HUD is withdrawing the August 26, 2011, proposed rule. While HUD seeks to ensure the availability of mortgage financing for qualified borrowers nationwide—and particularly in underserved areas—HUD and the Administration remain committed to reducing FHA's market share and facilitating the return of private capital to the housing finance market. Therefore, in concert with its network of FHA-approved lending partners, FHA will continue to monitor the adequacy of mortgage credit in rural areas to ensure that rural residents have access to homeownership.
Accordingly, the proposed rule to amend 24 CFR 202.10, published on August 26, 2011, at 76 FR 53362, entitled “Approval of Farm Credit System Lending Institutions in FHA Mortgage Insurance Programs,” is hereby withdrawn.
Department of Justice.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
Section 2265 of title 28, United States Code, instructs the Attorney General to promulgate regulations establishing a certification procedure for States seeking to qualify for the special Federal habeas corpus review provisions for capital cases under chapter 154 of title 28. The benefits of chapter 154—including expedited timing and limits on the scope of Federal habeas review of State judgments—are available to States on the condition that they provide counsel to indigent capital defendants in State postconviction proceedings pursuant to mechanisms that satisfy certain statutory requirements. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (supplemental notice) requests public comment concerning five changes that the Department is considering to a previously published proposed rule for the chapter 154 certification procedure.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2012. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
Comments may be mailed to Regulations Docket Clerk, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 4234, Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference OAG Docket No. 1540 on your correspondence. You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of this supplemental notice at
Caroline T. Nguyen, Office of Legal Policy, (202) 514-4601 (not a toll-free number).
You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name and address) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the paragraph above entitled
Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, makes special expedited procedures available to a State respondent in Federal habeas corpus proceedings involving review of State capital judgments, and limits the scope of Federal court review of such judgments, but only if the Attorney General has certified that the “State has established a mechanism for providing counsel in postconviction proceedings as provided in section 2265,” and if “counsel was appointed pursuant to that mechanism, petitioner validly waived counsel, petitioner retained counsel, or petitioner was found not to be indigent.” 28 U.S.C. 2261(b) (2006). Section 2265(a)(1) provides that, if requested by an appropriate State official, the Attorney General must determine whether “the State has established a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings brought by indigent [capital] prisoners” and whether the State “provides standards of competency for the appointment of counsel in [such proceedings].” Section 2265(b) directs the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to implement procedures for making the necessary determinations and certifying States accordingly.
The Attorney General published a proposed rule for the chapter 154 certification procedure in the
This supplemental notice solicits public comment on five potential changes to the proposed rule published on March 3. Each of these five proposed changes derives from comments received in response to the publication of that proposed rule. The Department solicits additional public views to provide all interested parties, including those who did not previously comment, an opportunity to provide input on these specific possible changes. The specific changes under consideration are (1) modifying the proposed rule's first counsel competency standard, § 26.22(b)(1), which sets as a benchmark five years of bar admission and three years of felony litigation experience, to substitute postconviction experience for felony litigation experience; (2) modifying the second counsel competency standard, § 26.22(b)(2), which incorporates as a benchmark certain provisions of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, Public Law 108-405, Title IV, § 421, 118 Stat. 2286, codified at 42 U.S.C. 14163(e)(1) and (2)(A), to incorporate as well other provisions of section 14163(e)(2), specifically, subparagraphs (B), (D), and (E); (3) specifying that a mechanism for providing competent counsel in postconviction proceedings must encompass a policy for the timely provision of counsel to satisfy chapter 154; (4) providing that the Attorney General will presumptively certify a mechanism that meets the standards set out in the rule; and (5) providing for periodic renewal of certifications.
This supplemental notice is limited to solicitation of additional comment on the matters described herein. Commenters need not reiterate or resubmit comments in response to this supplemental notice that they previously submitted relating to these matters or other aspects of the proposed rule. All public comments submitted pursuant to the proposed rule published on March 3, 2011, and in response to this supplemental notice will be fully considered when the Department prepares the final rule.
Section 26.22(b)(1) of the proposed rule provides that a State may satisfy chapter 154's requirement relating to counsel competency by requiring appointment of counsel “who have been admitted to the bar for at least five years and have at least three years of felony litigation experience.” 76 FR at 11712. The Department solicits comment on the suggestion to change this provision to set a standard of five years of bar admission and three years of postconviction litigation (instead of felony litigation) experience. In particular, the Department solicits comment on whether three years of postconviction litigation experience is an appropriate measure of competency in postconviction proceedings and whether more years, fewer years, or alternative measures would constitute a more appropriate benchmark.
The benchmark in the proposed rule is based on 18 U.S.C. 3599, pertaining to appointment of counsel in Federal court proceedings in capital cases. That provision sets out a standard of three years of felony trial experience for appointments made before judgment and three years of felony appellate experience for appointments made after judgment. The proposed rule incorporates neither of these specialized experience standards, but instead sets a benchmark of three years of felony litigation experience of any sort. The Department is considering substituting for that benchmark three years of postconviction litigation experience as the form of experience most relevant and most necessary to the litigation of State postconviction petitions.
In construing chapter 154, a number of courts have concluded that, given the complexity of postconviction law and procedure, a qualifying mechanism for the appointment of competent counsel should provide for counsel with specialized postconviction litigation experience.
At the same time, it is possible that some lawyers may be capable of providing competent counsel even without such postconviction experience. Accordingly, as in § 26.22(b)(1) of the proposed rule, a modified version of the provision with a postconviction experience standard could continue to include an exception allowing appointment of other counsel whose background, knowledge, or experience would otherwise enable him or her to properly represent the defendant.
Section 26.22(b)(2) of the proposed rule provides that a State's capital counsel mechanism will be deemed adequate for purposes of chapter 154's counsel competency requirements if it provides for the appointment of counsel “meeting qualification standards established in conformity with 42 U.S.C. 14163(e)(1) [and] (2)(A).” 76 FR at 11712. The Department solicits comments on the suggestion of modifying § 26.22(b)(2) in the proposed rule to incorporate not only section 14163(e)(1) and (2)(A), but all of the subparagraphs of that section that bear directly on counsel qualifications—specifically, subparagraphs (2)(B), (D), and (E).
Subparagraphs (B), (D), and (E) require maintenance of a roster of qualified attorneys; provision or approval of specialized training programs for attorneys representing defendants in capital cases; monitoring of the performance of attorneys who are appointed and their attendance at training programs to ensure continued competence; and removal from the roster of attorneys who fail to deliver effective representation or engage in unethical conduct. 42 U.S.C. 14163(e)(2). Those provisions are integral elements of the IPA's comprehensive approach to counsel qualifications. Under the modification now being considered by the Department, to the extent that the rule uses the IPA standard as a benchmark for counsel competency, it would incorporate all directly relevant elements of that Act.
The Department solicits comments on a proposal to specify that a State capital counsel mechanism must encompass a policy for the timely provision of competent counsel in order to be certified as an adequate “mechanism for the appointment * * * of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings” under chapter 154. 28 U.S.C. 2265(1)(A). The Department recognizes that States should be given significant latitude in designing their capital counsel mechanisms and therefore does not propose to define timeliness in terms of a specific number of days or weeks within which counsel is to be provided. Instead, the Department is considering only clarification that the mechanism must provide for affording counsel to indigent capital defendants in State postconviction proceedings in a manner that is reasonably timely, in light of the statutes of limitations governing both State and Federal collateral review and the effort involved in the investigation, research, and filing of effective habeas petitions, to protect a petitioner's right to meaningful habeas review.
Many comments raised the concern that the proposed rule does not address the timing of counsel appointment and asserted that such failure is particularly troubling in light of the expedited Federal habeas procedures under chapter 154. Section 2263, for example, generally requires the filing of a Federal habeas corpus petition within 180 days of the completion of direct State court review of the conviction and sentence, a period substantially shorter than in other Federal habeas cases. Compare 28 U.S.C. 2263(a) (180 days), with § 2444(d)(1) (one-year deadline); § 2255(f) (same). (Section 2263 also provides for tolling during the pendency of both a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (following direct review in State courts) and State collateral proceedings. § 2263 (b).) And section 2266 restricts the ability to amend a Federal habeas petition after it has been filed. § 2266(b)(3)(B).
The comments raise an important issue for consideration. Chapter 154 involves a
The Department is considering amending § 26.22(b) and (c) of the proposed rule to state that the Attorney General will “presumptively” certify that a State has established a sufficient mechanism for the appointment of competent counsel if he determines that the mechanism satisfies the specific standards for competency and compensation set out in the remainder of those paragraphs. So revised, the rule would continue to provide guidance to the States regarding approaches that are likely to be sufficient to warrant certification, while also allowing the Attorney General to consider whether the presumption that the standards described in the rule are adequate may be overcome in light of unusual circumstances presented by a particular State system.
Many commenters expressed concern that under the proposed rule, the Attorney General must certify a State's mechanism so long as it meets competence and compensation benchmarks identified in the proposed rule, even if it can be shown that in the context of the State in which it operates, the mechanism is not adequate. That concern is separate from criticism that the proposed rule fails to provide for oversight of a State's compliance with its own mechanism over time; the Department remains of the view that whether a State has complied with its mechanism in an individual case is a question the statute assigns to the Federal habeas courts, not to the Attorney General.
The comments raise an issue that should be considered. The Department continues to believe that compliance with the competence and compensation benchmarks identified in the proposed rule, subject to modifications discussed herein, and the proposed specification that a mechanism include a policy on timeliness, are likely to result in the timely provision of competent counsel. But the comments seemed persuasive that it may not be possible to predict with certainty that these benchmarks will be adequate in the context of every possible State capital counsel system. For example, in the context of a particular State and its distinctive market conditions for legal services, it is conceivable that what normally should be sufficient compensation may not in fact be reasonably likely to make competent lawyers available for timely provision to capital petitioners in State habeas proceedings. Modification of the rule as indicated would afford the Attorney General latitude to consider such circumstances and other similar State-specific circumstances in making certification decisions.
The Department solicits comments on a proposal to specify that a certification under chapter 154 is effective for a specified term of years. This proposal is responsive to many comments pointing out that changed circumstances may affect whether a once-certified mechanism continues to be adequate for purposes of ensuring the availability for appointment of competent counsel. At the time a State applies for certification, for example, its provisions authorizing compensation at a specified hourly rate may be sufficient to achieve this objective. But after the passage of years, that may no longer be the case in light of inflation or other changed economic circumstances.
At the same time, it is possible that overly stringent limitations on the duration of certifications could unduly burden States and disserve chapter 154's objectives by discouraging States from undertaking the effort to establish compliant mechanisms and seek their certification. Balancing the need for examination of continued compliance with the need to provide States with a substantial period of certainty, the Department is considering a term of five years for certifications, which would begin to run only after completion of both the certification process by the Attorney General and any related judicial review.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. It only requests public comment on possible changes in a previously published proposed rule regarding the certification procedure under chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It only requests public comment on possible changes in a previously published proposed rule regarding the certification procedure under chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code.
This rule will not result in aggregate expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
FMCSA announces its intent to move forward with the Electronic On-Board Recorders and Hours of Service Supporting Documents rulemaking (EOBR 2) by preparing a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). To augment the Agency's efforts to obtain comprehensive data to support this SNPRM, FMCSA plans to do the following: hold listening sessions on the issue of driver harassment; task the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to assist in developing material to support this
Comments and material received from the public as well as documents mentioned in this notice are available for inspection or copying in the docket, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167, and at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at (202) 366-5370.
The following discussion summarizes the recent regulatory history of the agency's EOBR initiatives.
On April 5, 2010, the Agency issued a final rule (75 FR 17208) that provided new technical requirements for EOBRs. The EOBR final rule also required the limited, remedial use of EOBRs by any motor carrier found, during a single compliance review, to have a 10 percent violation rate for any hours-of-service (HOS) regulation listed in a new Appendix C of 49 CFR part 385. The final rule required EOBRs on all of the motor carrier's commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) for a period of 2 years. The compliance date for the final rule was June 4, 2012.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) challenged the final rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. OOIDA raised several concerns relating to EOBRs and their potential use for driver harassment. On August 26, 2011, the Court vacated the entire final rule.
USE OF MONITORING DEVICES. If the Secretary of Transportation prescribes a regulation about the use of monitoring devices on commercial motor vehicles to increase compliance by operators of the vehicles with hours of service regulations of the Secretary,
The court's expectation about how the Agency should address harassment and productivity under the statutory directive included the following:
“In addition, an adequate explanation that addresses the distinction between productivity and harassment must also describe what precisely it is that will prevent harassment from occurring. The Agency needs to consider what types of harassment already exist, how frequently and to what extent harassment happens, and how an electronic device capable of contemporaneous transmission of information to a motor carrier will guard against (or fail to guard against) harassment. A study of these problems with EOBRs already in use, and a comparison with carriers that do not use these devices, might be one obvious way to measure any effect that requiring EOBRs might have on driver harassment” (Id. at 588-89).
The Court also noted that the Agency had not estimated the safety benefits of EOBRs currently in use and how much EOBRs increased compliance.
As a result of the vacatur, carriers relying on electronic devices to monitor HOS compliance are currently governed by the Agency's previous rules regarding the use of automatic on-board recording devices (49 CFR 395.15). The requirements set forth in 49 CFR 395.15, were not affected by the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding the technical specifications set out in 49 CFR 395.16 in the EOBR 1 Final Rule.
On February 1, 2011, the Agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to expand the scope of EOBR use to a broader population of motor carriers (EOBR 2) (76 FR 5537). The EOBR 2 NPRM proposed that, within 3 years of the effective date of the final rule, all motor carriers currently required to maintain records of duty status (RODS) for HOS recordkeeping would be required to use EOBRs.
Due to the pending EOBR 1 litigation, the Agency extended the EOBR 2 public comment period and, in recognition of issues raised in oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, expressly invited comment on the issue of driver harassment. A notice published on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13121) extended the public comment period for the EOBR 2 NPRM to May 23, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the Agency published a notice specifically inviting comments on the EOBR2 rulemaking to address harassment (76 FR 20611). In light of the litigation challenging the Agency's treatment of driver harassment in EOBR 1, FMCSA wished to ensure that interested parties had a full opportunity to consider the harassment issue in the active EOBR 2 rulemaking.
Because the EOBR 2 rule relied on the technical specifications provided in EOBR 1, where this final rule was vacated, the Agency must again proposed and seek comment on new technical standards into the CFR before any final rule concerning use of an EOBR device is issued. These proposed technical standards would take into account the official MCSAC recommendations, as well as public comments.
FMCSA takes this opportunity to declare its intention to proceed with the EOBR 2 rulemaking. The Agency is preparing an SNPRM to propose technical standards for an EOBR, address driver harassment issues, propose requirements for retaining HOS supporting documents, and provide clarification and request further comments on several of the proposals. Additionally, the Agency will hold public listening sessions; work with its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC); and use driver, carrier, and vendor surveys to obtain all the stakeholder information needed to discuss issues involving driver harassment.
FMCSA will hold public listening sessions to discuss issues involving the driver harassment issue. The public will have an opportunity to speak about this issue and provide the Agency with information on how to address harassment. All public comments will be placed in the docket of this rulemaking. Details concerning the schedule and locations for the listening sessions, as well as procedural information for participants, will follow in a subsequent
MCSAC is an advisory committee to FMCSA.
In June 2011, a MCSAC subcommittee began work on Task 11-04 (Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) Communications Protocols, Security, Interfaces, and Display of Hours-of-Service Data During Driver/Vehicle Inspections and Safety Investigations). The subcommittee examined technical issues relating to the electronic transfer of HOS information from CMVs to law enforcement personnel at the roadside raised by the EOBR 1 final rule. The subcommittee met several times and made its final report to the full committee on December 5 and 6, 2011. On December 16, 2011, the full committee made an official recommendation to FMCSA.
FMCSA will task MCSAC to make recommendations related to the EOBR2 rulemaking. Details will follow in a subsequent
More information about these MCSAC meetings, recommendations, and task orders can be found at
Subject to Office of Management and Budget approval, FMCSA will initiate OMB-approved survey of drivers regarding harassment experiences and concerns and OMB-approved surveys for carriers and vendors regarding harassment. Details will follow in subsequent
Based on the Seventh Circuit's decision, the Agency plans to publish a final rule in the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Agriculture published a document in the
Effie Baldwin,(202) 401-4891
(1) In the
In September of 2008 and June of 2010, NIFA solicited public comment from persons who use or conduct research, extension, or education activities to assist with guidance to be developed for this new program.
(2) In the
In an effort to improve the quality of the AFRI program, NIFA is again holding a public meeting and soliciting public comments for consideration in the development of future AFRI program solicitations. All written comments received prior to the AFRI Listening Session on February 22, 2012, may be utilized in a question and response document and/or responded to during the session held on February 22, 2012 based on the applicability of the comment to the general population of AFRI stakeholders. However, all comments must be received by close of business on March 22, 2012, to be considered in the initial drafting of the FY 2013 AFRI program solicitations.
(3) In the
(4) In the
(5) In the
(6) In the
(7) In the
(8) In the
Fellows
(9) In the
The date and time for each webinar will be posted to the following URL, on or before February 22, 2012:
(10) In the
Written comments and suggestions on issues that may be considered in the meeting may be submitted to Ms. Terri Joya at the address above.
Saturday, February 11, 2012, 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT.
Telephonic Meeting.
Notice of Special Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session to consider the issue of Board leadership following the recent departure of the Board Chairman. The BBG will be meeting at the time listed above. At the meeting, which will be conducted telephonically, the BBG will consider the conduct of Board operations in the absence of a Chair. Due to the meeting's short notice, the Agency is unable to make it available for public observation via live streaming webcast. However, a complete audio recording and a verbatim transcript of the meeting will promptly be made available for public observation on the BBG's public Web site at
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (NPFMC) Scallop Plan Team (SPT).
The SPT will meet February 27, 2012 at the NPFMC conference room 205.
The meeting will be held on February 27, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.
Diana Stram; NPFMC; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Plan Team will meet to discuss status of statewide scallop stocks and compile the annual Stock Assessment Evaluation report (SAFE). The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Pacific Council and its advisory entities will meet February 29 to March 7, 2012. The Pacific Council meeting will begin on Friday, March 2, 2012 at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Wednesday, March 7, 2012. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held as the third agenda item on Saturday, March 3 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Pacific Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
Meetings of the Pacific Council and its advisory entities will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95815; telephone: (916) 929-8855.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 820-2280 or (866) 806-7204 toll free; or access the Pacific Council Web site,
The following items are on the Pacific Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council 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.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 13, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Joint Personnel Adjudication System, ATTN: Autumn Grijalva, 400 Gigling Road, Seaside, CA 93955, or call the JPAS Office at 831-583-4191.
Respondents are Facility Security Managers or DoD Adjudicators who update eligibility and access levels of military, civilian and contractor personnel nominated for access to sensitive DoD information. JPAS is a Personnel Security System and is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities. Collection and maintenance of personal data in JPAS is required to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice of Availability.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in conjunction with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Clearwater Program. The Clearwater Program is a comprehensive planning effort undertaken by the Sanitation Districts. Its purpose is to develop a long-range Master Facilities Plan for the Joint Outfall System, a regional wastewater management system serving approximately 4.8 million people in 73 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. A major component of the Clearwater Program is the evaluation of alternatives for new ocean outfalls and rehabilitation of the existing ocean outfalls. Both activities would entail discharge of dredged and fill material in waters of the United States, work in navigable waters of the United States, and the transport of dredged material for ocean disposal. These activities would require authorization from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, respectively.
Questions or comments concerning the Draft EIS/EIR should be directed to Dr. Aaron O. Allen, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Ventura Field Office, 2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110, Ventura, CA 93001, (805) 585-2148.
The Draft EIS/EIR is available for a 57-day review period from February 13, 2012 through April 10, 2012. The document is accessible via the World-Wide Web at
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on December 19, 2011, by Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC (collectively, FLEX), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) in an amount up to the equivalent of 511 Billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per year, which averages to 1.4 Bcf per day (Bcf/d), over a 25-year period, commencing on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the requested authorization is granted. The LNG would be exported from the Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island near Freeport, Texas, to any country (1) with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, (2) which has developed or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and (3) with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. The Application is filed independent of, and in addition to, FLEX's prior application filed with DOE/FE under Docket No. 10-161-LNG. This Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, April 13, 2012.
U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Natural Gas Regulatory
U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Larine Moore or Marc Talbert, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586-9478; (202) 586-7991.
Edward Myers, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Assistant General Counsel, Electricity & Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6B-159, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586-3397.
FLNG Expansion is a Delaware limited partnership and a wholly owned subsidiary of Freeport LNG Development, L.P. with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. FLNG Liquefaction is a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of FLNG Expansion with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. FLEX, through one or more of its subsidiaries, intends to develop, own and operate natural gas liquefaction facilities to receive and liquefy domestic natural gas for export (Liquefaction Project) to foreign markets, pursuant to the export authorization sought herein. The Liquefaction Project facilities will be integrated into the existing Freeport Terminal, and is in addition to a separate liquefaction project proposed at the same terminal for substantially the same volume. The Freeport Terminal presently consists of a marine berth, two 160,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage tanks, LNG vaporization systems, associated utilities and a 9.6-mile pipeline and meter station.
FLEX intends to expand the terminal to provide natural gas pretreatment, liquefaction, and export capacity of up to 511 Bcf per year, which averages to 1.4 Bcf/d.
In the instant application, FLEX seeks long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced LNG up to the equivalent of 511 Bcf of natural gas per year, 1.4 Bcf/d, for a period of twenty-five years beginning on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the authorization is granted by DOE/FE. FLEX requests that such long-term authorization provide for export from the Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island, Texas to any country with which the United States does not have an FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, which has developed or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy.
FLEX states that rather than enter into long-term natural gas supply or LNG export contracts, it contemplates that its business model will be based primarily on Liquefaction Tolling Agreements (LTA), under which individual customers who hold title to natural gas will have the right to deliver that gas to FLEX and receive LNG. FLEX states that in the current natural gas market, LTAs fulfill the role previously performed by long-term supply contracts, in that they provide stable commercial arrangements between companies involved in natural gas services. FLEX states that the Liquefaction Project will require significant capital expenditures on fixed assets. FLEX further states that although it has not yet entered into long-term LTAs or other commercial arrangements, long-term export authorization is required to attract prospective LTA customers willing to make large-scale, long-term investments in LNG export arrangements. FLEX states that both are required to obtain necessary financing for the Liquefaction Project.
FLEX requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to engage in exports of LNG on its own behalf or as agent for others. FLEX contemplates that the title holder at the point of export
FLEX states that the natural gas supply underlying the proposed exports will come primarily from the highly liquid Texas market, but may draw upon the interconnected general U.S. natural gas market. FLEX states that given the size of the traditional natural gas market in close proximity to the Freeport Terminal, and the exponential growth of unconventional resources in the region, a diverse and reliable source
In support of its Application, FLEX states that DOE/FE has consistently ruled that section 3(a) of the NGA creates a rebuttable presumption that proposed exports of natural gas are in the public interest. FLEX asserts that unless opponents of an export license make an affirmative showing based on evidence in the record that the export would be inconsistent with the public interest, DOE/FE must grant the export application.
FLEX asserts that in evaluating whether the proposed exportation is within the public interest, DOE/FE applies the principles established by the Policy Guidelines,
FLEX states that as a result of technological advances, huge reserves of domestic shale gas that were previously infeasible or uneconomic to develop are now being profitably produced in many regions of the United States. FLEX asserts that the United States is now estimated to have more natural gas resources than it can use in a century.
FLEX asserts that as U.S. natural gas reserves and production have risen, U.S. natural gas prices have fallen to the point where they are among the lowest in the developed world. FLEX states that LNG supply contracts in Asian markets are pegged to crude oil prices. FLEX asserts that while Europe receives pipeline gas from various sources, the long supply chains and relative inflexibility of markets have made diversification of supply a high priority. FLEX states that domestic natural gas prices are projected to remain low relative to European and Asian markets well into the future, making exports of LNG by vessel a viable long-term opportunity for the United States.
FLEX states that the Liquefaction Project is positioned to provide the Gulf Coast region and the United States with significant economic benefits by increasing domestic natural gas production. FLEX states that these benefits will be obtained with only a minimal effect on domestic natural gas prices. FLEX states that at current and forecasted rates of demand, the United States' natural gas reserves will meet demand for 100 years. FLEX states that the Liquefaction Project allows the United States to benefit now from the natural gas resources that may not otherwise be produced for many decades, if ever. FLEX provides further discussion on why the proposed export authorization is in the public interest.
First, FLEX contends that the project will cause direct and indirect job creation through construction (3,000 onsite jobs over 3-4 years) and operation (20 to 30 permanent jobs) of the Liquefaction Project, and indirect jobs as a result of increased drilling for and production of natural gas (17,000 to 21,000 jobs).
Second, FLEX maintains that the Liquefaction Project would create significant economic stimulus, with the total economic benefits to the American economy estimated to be between $3.6 and $5.2 billion per year from 2015 to 2040, or $90 to $130 billion over the requested 25-year export term.
Third, FLEX contends that there will be a material improvement in the U.S. balance of trade. FLEX states that assuming an average value of $7 per million Btu, exporting approximately 1.4 Bcf/d of LNG through the Liquefaction Project will improve the U.S. balance of payments by approximately $3.9 billion per year, or $97.5 billion over the requested 25-year export term.
Fourth, FLEX states the project will have significant environmental benefits by reducing global greenhouse gas emissions if the natural gas exported is used as a substitute for coal and fuel oil.
Fifth, FLEX states the Liquefaction Project supports American energy security. To support this statement, FLEX states that the United States has developed a massive natural gas resource base that is sufficient to supply domestic demand for a century, even with significant exports of LNG. FLEX states the Liquefaction Project will not adversely affect U.S. Energy security. FLEX references the MIT Report
Finally, FLEX provides further discussion of various studies that allegedly support FLEX's public interest analysis.
Based on the reasoning provided in the Application, FLEX requests that DOE/FE determine that FLEX's request for long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries is not inconsistent with the public interest.
FLEX states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has already authorized the Phase II expansion of the Freeport LNG Terminal. FLEX also states that the Liquefaction Project improvements, including those required to conduct operations under the current Application will be contained within the previously authorized operational area of the Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island, Texas. FLEX states that the potential air impacts of the Liquefaction Project, including the facilities required to support the Export Authorization, will be reviewed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FLEX states that other environmental impacts of the Liquefaction Project will be reviewed by FERC under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FLEX states that the FERC authorization will be conditioned upon issuance of air quality permits from TCEQ and EPA. Accordingly, FLEX requests that DOE/FE issue a conditional order authorizing export of domestically produced LNG pending
The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, as amended, and the authority contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 00-002.00L (April 29, 2011) and DOE Redelegation Order No. 00-002.04E (April 29, 2011). In reviewing this LNG export Application, DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant or appropriate, these issues will include the impact of LNG exports associated with this Application, and the cumulative impact of any other application(s) previously approved, on domestic need for the gas proposed for export, adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and any other issues, including the impact on the U.S. economy (GDP), consumers, and industry, job creation, U.S. balance of trade, international considerations, and whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this Application should comment in their responses on these issues, as well as any other issues deemed relevant to the Application.
NEPA requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA responsibilities.
Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicants, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, or motions for additional procedures.
In response to this notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Submitting comments in electronic form on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. A party seeking intervention may request that additional procedures be provided, such as additional written comments, an oral presentation, a conference, or trial-type hearing. Any request to file additional written comments should explain why they are necessary. Any request for an oral presentation should identify the substantial question of fact, law, or policy at issue, show that it is material and relevant to a decision in the proceeding, and demonstrate why an oral presentation is needed. Any request for a conference should demonstrate why the conference would materially advance the proceeding. Any request for a trial-type hearing must show that there are factual issues genuinely in dispute that are relevant and material to a decision and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.
The Application filed by FLEX is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address:
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The proposed project would use the existing Corps' R.C. Byrd Locks and Dam and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 1,200-foot-long intake channel; (2) a trashrack located in front of each of the generating unit intakes, with a bar spacing of approximately 8 inches; (3) a reinforced concrete powerhouse measuring approximately 258 feet long by 145 feet wide by 110 feet high and housing two bulb-type turbine generator units with a total installed capacity of 50 megawatts; (4) a 900-foot-long tailrace channel; (5) a 2.41-mile-long, 138-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 266 gigawatt-hours.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
Take notice that on January 25, 2012, Alliance Pipeline L.P. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act to construct, and operate approximately 79.3 miles of 12-inch diameter interstate natural gas pipeline lateral designed to connect new natural gas production near Tioga, North Dakota to the Alliance mainline near Sherwood, North Dakota. Additional facilities to be constructed as part of the project include a 6,000 horsepower compressor station, a meter station, a pressure regulating station, appurtenances, and a non-jurisdictional liquid meter and pump station. The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $141,437,000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Brian Troicuk, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Alliance Pipeline Ltd., on behalf of Alliance Pipeline Inc., Managing General Partner of Alliance Pipeline L.P., 800, 605—5 Ave. SW., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3H5 by phone: 403-517-6354 or by email:
Alliance also requests approval to establish initial incremental recourse rates for firm and interruptible service on the Tioga Lateral. Additionally, Alliance requests that the Commission order granting the requested certificate
On July 1, 2011, the Commission staff granted Alliance's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF11-7-000 to staff activities involved the Tioga Lateral Project. Now as of the filing the January 25, 2012 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP12-50-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Take notice that on February 3, 2012, CenterPoint Energy—Illinois Gas Transmission Company filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with a Delegated letter order issued January 24, 2012, in Docket No. PR11-127-000, as more fully detailed in the petition.
Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 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 date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not 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
Take notice that on February 3, 2012, pursuant to Rules 207 and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 and 385.212, 18 CFR part 34, and Section 204 of the Federal Power Act, 16 USC 824(c), Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC (CSCC) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting that the Commission confirm that CSCC's blanket authorization remains operative under Part 34 of the Commission's Regulations.
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 13, 2012, the Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the P.E. Scooteney Wasteway Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the P.E. 46A Wasteway, which is part of the Federal Columbia Basin Project, in Franklin County, Washington.
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 20-foot-long, 20-foot-wide intake diversion canal leading to a 20-foot-wide, 15-foot-high intake gate structure; (2) an 8-foot-diameter, 2,800-foot-long steel penstock connecting the intake gate structure to the powerhouse; (3) a powerhouse containing a single Francis turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 1.1 megawatts; (4) an approximately 0.5-mile-long, 13.8-kilovolt transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of 4,800 megawatts-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On January 13, 2012, the Grand Coulee Project Hydroelectric Authority (GCPHA) filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the P.E. 16.4 Wasteway Hydroelectric Project, to be located on the P.E. 16.4 Wasteway, which is part of the Federal Columbia Basin Project, in Franklin County, Washington.
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 20-foot-long, 20-foot-wide intake diversion canal leading to a 20-foot-wide, 15-foot-high intake gate structure; (2) an 8-foot-diameter, 4900-foot-long steel penstock connecting the intake gate structure to the powerhouse; (3) a powerhouse containing a single Francis turbine/generating unit with an installed capacity of 1.75 megawatts; (4) an
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On December 13, 2011, the Secretary issued formal notice that on February 16, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. MST, the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will convene a technical conference with interested parties to discuss issues related to natural gas storage development in the southwestern United States, to be held at the Radisson Fort McDowell Resort, 10438 North Fort McDowell Rd., Scottsdale, AZ 85264 (
Attached is a revised agenda for the conference. In addition, this conference will be transcribed, and the transcript will be immediately available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646).
If you have any questions about the upcoming conference or if you would like additional information, please contact Berne Mosley in the Office of Energy Projects, phone: (202) 502-8700, email:
Environmental Protection Agency .
Notice of Peer Review Meeting.
EPA is announcing that Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will convene an independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer review meeting to review the draft human health assessment titled, “Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” [EPA/635/R-11/003]. The draft assessment was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA Office of Research and Development. EPA is releasing this draft assessment for the purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft assessment is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.
Versar, Inc. invites the public to register to attend this meeting as observers. In addition, Versar, Inc. invites the public to give brief oral comments and/or provide written comments at the meeting regarding the draft assessment under review. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. In preparing a final report, EPA will consider Versar, Inc.'s report of the comments and recommendations from the external peer review meeting and any written public comments that EPA receives in accordance with the announcements of the public comment period for the 1,4-dioxane assessment in
The peer review panel meeting on the draft assessment for 1,4-dioxane will be held on March 19, 2012, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
The draft “Toxicological Review of 1,4-Dioxane: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
The peer review meeting on the draft 1,4-dioxane assessment will be held at Hyatt Place, Raleigh-Durham Airport, 200 Airgate Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560. To attend the meeting, register no later than March 12, 2012, by contacting Versar, Inc., by email:
Additional Information: For information on the draft assessment, please contact Patricia Gillespie, National Center for Environmental Assessment [Mail Code: B-243-01], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-1964; facsimile: (919) 541-2985; or email: [
EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may result from exposure to chemical substances found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more than 550 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments. Combined with specific exposure information, government and private entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk management decisions designed to protect public health.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Request for Nominations to the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC). Vacancies are anticipated to be filled by May 2012. Sources in addition to this
Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for two-year terms with the possibility of reappointment. The FRRCC generally meets two (2) times annually, or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Meetings will generally be held in Washington, DC. Members serve on the Committee in a voluntary capacity.
We are unable to provide honoraria or compensation for your services. However, if needed, you may receive travel and per diem allowances where appropriate and according to applicable federal travel regulations. EPA is seeking nominations from all sectors, including academia, industry (
In selecting Committee members, EPA will seek candidates who possess: Extensive professional knowledge of agricultural issues and environmental policy; a demonstrated ability to examine and analyze complicated environmental issues with objectivity and integrity; excellent interpersonal as well as oral and written communication skills; and an ability and willingness to participate in a deliberative and collaborative process. In addition, well-qualified applicants must be prepared to process a substantial amount of complex and technical information, and have the ability to volunteer approximately 10 to 15 hours per month to the Committee's activities, including participation in teleconference meetings and preparation of text for Committee reports.
Applicants are encouraged to submit all nominations materials by March 15, 2012 in order to ensure fullest consideration.
Submit all nominations to: Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MC 1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also email nominations with the subject line Committee Nomination to:
Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Email:
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the date of the Emergency Access Advisory Committee's (Committee or EAAC) next meeting. The February meeting will review achievements from 2011 and consider plans for activities for 2012.
The Committee's next meeting will take place on Friday, February 10, 2012, 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST), at the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, in the Commission Meeting Room.
Cheryl King, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2284 (voice) or (202) 418-0416 (TTY), email:
On December 7, 2010, in document DA 10-2318, Chairman Julius Genachowski announced the establishment and appointment of members and Co-Chairpersons of the EAAC, an advisory committee required by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), Public Law 111-260, which directs that an advisory committee be established for the purpose of achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of our nation's migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, also known as the next generation 9-1-1 system (NG 9-1-1). The purpose of the EAAC is to determine the most effective and efficient technologies and methods by which to enable access to NG 9-1-1 emergency services by individuals with disabilities. In 2011, the EAAC conducted a nationwide survey of individuals with disabilities, prepared a report on the survey, and developed recommendations for achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of our nation's migration to the NG 9-1-1 system. The EAAC recommendations were submitted to the FCC, in compliance with the CVAA's statutory mandate, by December 7, 2011.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 10:00 A.M.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor)
This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.
Correction and Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of February 2, 2012.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-02: Wawa, Inc.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-04: Justice Party of Mississippi.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829).
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
The Federal Reserve has determined that a few of the data items that the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) had deemed confidential—specifically, the FR 2320 counterparts to data items HC850, HC855, and HC860 on Schedule HC of the Thrift Financial Report (TFR; OMB No. 1557-0255)—may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).
With regard to the remaining data items the OTS had deemed confidential on Schedule HC, the SLHC may request, in writing, confidential treatment of such information under one or more of the exemptions in FOIA, 5 U.S.C.
Two commenters requested clarification of the reporting criteria for multi-tiered SLHCs. Also, these commenters asked that the Federal Reserve be flexible when determining which SLHCs within a multi-tiered organization would be required to file the FR 2320. In response to the comments, the Federal Reserve will clarify the FR 2320 instructions to indicate which SLHCs should file the FR 2320. The FR 2320 will generally be filed by the top-tier SLHC if that SLHC is exempt
One commenter noted certain data items that were given confidential treatment by the OTS are no longer afforded the same treatment in the FR 2320 and this may be of concern to privately held institutions. After considering these comments, the Federal Reserve believes the data items no longer held as confidential will not cause competitive harm to any institution, publicly or privately held and notes there are several BHCs that are privately held where similar information is made publicly available. However, as noted above, institutions may request, in writing, confidential treatment for any data item in the FR 2320 or for all data items in the report, and confidential treatment will be afforded if the institution is able to establish that disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 9, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1. Western State Agency, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Devils Lake, North Dakota; to acquire an additional 14.44 percent, for a total of 43.25 percent of the voting shares of Western State Agency, Inc., Devils Lake, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of Western State Bank, Devils Lake, North Dakota.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Government Accountability Office.
Policy statement.
On September 30, 2011, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided notice of its proposed policy to adopt the policies and procedures contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) regarding the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility of government contractors. Comments on GAO's policy were due on or before November 14, 2011. GAO received two comments. Both comments expressed support for GAO's efforts to adopt policies and procedures regarding the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility of government contractors. Neither comment suggested any changes to GAO's policy statement. GAO is adopting, with minor changes, the policy statement published in the
As a legislative branch agency, GAO is not subject to the requirements of the FAR. However, it is GAO's general policy to follow the FAR, as appropriate and applicable. Mandatory application of the FAR is not to be inferred from
This policy is effective February 13, 2012.
Questions concerning this policy can be addressed to Government Accountability Office, Office of the General Counsel, Attn: Legal Services, Room 7838, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20548.
John A. Bielec, Assistant General Counsel, 202-512-2846 or email,
Under GAO's policy, GAO will follow FAR Subpart 9.4. GAO's Procurement Order, GAO Order 0625.1, states that it is GAO's policy to follow the FAR and GAO has long-maintained procedures, consistent with FAR Subpart 9.4, that ensure that it contracts only with those entities and individuals (hereinafter, contractors) who are responsible. However, GAO's Procurement Order does not explicitly reference the debarment and suspension procedures contained in FAR Subpart 9.4. To make clear that FAR Subpart 9.4 applies, GAO will amend its Procurement Order to formally and explicitly adopt FAR Subpart 9.4.
Except as provided in FAR Subpart 9.4, GAO will not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with, contractors who are listed on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), which is maintained by the General Services Administration. Further, if GAO debars, proposes for debarment, or suspends a contractor, GAO will, consistent with FAR Subpart 9.4, list that contractor in the EPLS. Given that GAO is a legislative branch agency, the listing of a contractor in the EPLS by GAO will have mandatory effect only as to GAO. Consistent with FAR 9.405-1, GAO may continue an existing contract with a contractor who is later debarred, proposed for debarment, or suspended.
Consistent with the definitions of “debarring official” and “suspending official” contained at FAR 9.403, the Comptroller General, as the head of GAO, will serve as the debarring official and suspending official (hereinafter, debarment/suspension official). The Comptroller General may designate another GAO official to serve as the debarment/suspension official. The Comptroller General will also be responsible for deciding whether to solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with contractors who have been debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, and whether to terminate a current contract or subcontract in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.
GAO's Acquisition Management office (AM), which is responsible for the majority of GAO's contracting activities, will be the GAO unit with primary responsibility for investigating and referring potential debarment and suspension actions to the debarment/suspension official for his or her consideration. GAO's procurement activities are largely centralized in AM, which is staffed by contracting officers and other acquisition professionals. As such, AM staff has the required technical knowledge to handle debarment and suspension referrals and is in the best position to learn of matters that may warrant debarment and/or suspension. Moreover, AM is the first point of contact for Contracting Officers' Representatives, who have direct knowledge of any problems with contractor performance. Thus, individuals—including GAO employees and members of the public—who believe that there may be grounds to debar or suspend a contractor should contact AM and provide them with all relevant information. Whenever AM learns of information that indicates there may be grounds for debarring or suspending a contractor, AM will gather appropriate information and refer the matter to the debarment/suspension official. All such referrals will include a recommendation by the Director of AM as to a proposed course of action. Likewise, AM will have responsibility for recommending to the Comptroller General whether or not to continue current contracts with, solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with a contractor who is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.
Given its central role in GAO's procurement process, AM, in consultation with GAO's Office of General Counsel, will also be responsible for establishing written procedures that address the key aspects of GAO's debarment/suspension program.
Accordingly, the Government Accountability Office has adopted the following policy and will incorporate it into GAO's Procurement Order:
GAO will follow the policies and procedures contained at FAR Subpart 9.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility. GAO will not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with contractors who are listed on the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), except as otherwise provided for in FAR Subpart 9.4. GAO will report to the EPLS any contractor GAO debars, suspends, or proposes for debarment. Such action will have mandatory application only to GAO. Notwithstanding the debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment of a contractor, GAO may continue contracts or subcontracts in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless the Comptroller General (CG) directs otherwise.
The CG or a designee will serve as the debarring official and suspending official (debarment/suspension official). The CG will also decide whether to solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with contractors who have been debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment and whether to terminate a current contract or subcontract in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.
Acquisition Management (AM) will have primary responsibility for investigating and referring potential debarment/suspension actions to the debarment/suspension official for consideration. As such, any person who believes that there may be grounds to debar or suspend a person or entity from contracting with GAO should contact AM and provide them with all relevant information. AM will also have responsibility for recommending to the CG whether or not to continue current contracts with, solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with a contractor who is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.
In consultation with the Office of General Counsel, AM will establish and maintain written procedures for:
(1) The prompt reporting, investigation, and referral to the debarment/suspension official of matters appropriate for that official's consideration. All debarment/suspension referrals shall include a recommendation by the Director of AM as to a proposed course of action;
(2) The debarment decisionmaking process, which shall afford the contractor (and any specifically named affiliates) an opportunity to submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the proposed debarment;
(3) The suspension decisionmaking process, which shall afford the contractor (and any specifically named affiliates) an opportunity, following the imposition of suspension, to submit, in person, in writing, or through a representative, information and argument in opposition to the suspension;
(4) Recommending to the CG whether or not to solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with a contractor who is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment; and
(5) Recommending to the CG whether or not to continue current contracts with a contractor or subcontractor who is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment.
OGC will review for legal sufficiency:
(1) Referrals by AM to the debarment/suspension official;
(2) Recommendations by AM to the CG that GAO solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with a contractor who is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment;
(3) Recommendations by AM to the CG to terminate a current contract because a contractor or subcontractor was subsequently debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment; and
(4) Notices of proposed debarment, notices of suspension, or any other communication to a contractor regarding that contractor's potential or actual suspension or debarment.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed information collection request for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 milligram (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for clonidine hydrochloride extended-release tablets, 0.2 mg, if all other requirements are met.
Kristiana Brugger,Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,Food and Drug Administration,10903 New Hampshire Ave.,Bldg. 51, rm. 6262,Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,301-796-3601.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, is the subject of NDA 22-331, held by Shionogi Pharma, Inc., and initially approved on September 28, 2010. KAPVAY is indicated for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy to stimulant medications. Shionogi Pharma has never marketed KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg. In previous instances (see,
Actavis, Inc. submitted a citizen petition dated April 20, 2011 (Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0292), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records, and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg from sale. We have found no information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, FDA will continue to list KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to KAPVAY (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.2 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 milligram (mg) and 0.2 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for clonidine hydrochloride extended-release tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, if all other requirements are met.
Kristiana Brugger, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6262, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,”
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, are the subject of NDA 22-331, held by Shionogi Pharma, Inc., initially approved on September 29, 2009. JENLOGA is indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Shionogi Pharma has never marketed JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg. In previous instances (see, e.g., 72 FR 9763, March 5, 2007; 61 FR 25497, May 21, 1996), the Agency has determined that, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.
Actavis, Inc. submitted a citizen petition dated April 20, 2011 (Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0291), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, from sale. We have found no information that would indicate that these products were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, FDA will continue to list JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to JENLOGA (clonidine hydrochloride) Extended-Release Tablets, 0.1 mg and 0.2 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 Milligrams (mg), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for phentermine hydrochloride tablets, 8 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Nam Kim, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6320, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3472.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 mg is the subject of NDA 012737, held by Sandoz, Inc. WILPO is indicated in the management of exogenous obesity as a short term adjunct (a few weeks) in a regimen of weight reduction based on caloric restriction.
WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 mg, is currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
KVK-Tech, Inc. (KVK-Tech), submitted a citizen petition dated September 22, 2011 (Docket No. FDA-2011-P-0701), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 mg, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition and reviewing
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to WILPO (phentermine hydrochloride) Tablets, 8 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Heparin for Drug and Medical Device Use: Monitoring Crude Heparin for Quality.” This draft guidance is intended to alert manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers of finished products, and others to the potential risk of crude heparin contamination.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 13, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Frank W. Perrella, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 4337, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3265; or Dennis M. Bensley, Jr., Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-140), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8268; or Jason Brookbank, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 3558, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5770.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Heparin for Drug and Medical Device Use: Monitoring Crude Heparin for Quality.” This draft guidance provides recommendations that will help API manufacturers, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers of finished products, and others, to better control their use of crude heparin that might contain oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) or non-porcine material (especially ruminant material) contaminants. This draft guidance on crude heparin recommends strategies to test for contamination and should be used in addition to the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) monograph testing required for other forms of heparin to detect the presence of OSCS.
Following reports of serious adverse events (including deaths) among patients injected with heparin sodium in 2008, FDA identified the contaminant OSCS in heparin API manufactured in China. FDA is also concerned about the potential for contamination of heparin with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) agent derived from ruminant materials. The control of the quality of crude heparin is critical to ensure the safety of drugs and devices and to protect public health. FDA developed this draft guidance to alert manufacturers to the risks of crude heparin contaminants and to recommend strategies to ensure that the heparin supply chain is not contaminated with OSCS or any non-porcine origin material, especially ruminant material (unless specifically approved or cleared as part of drug or medical device application).
The draft guidance recommends that manufacturers test and confirm the species origin of crude heparin in each shipment before use in the manufacture or preparation of a drug or medical device containing heparin. The test method should be qualified for use in testing crude heparin and for the identification of species origin. The method should be based on good scientific principles (e.g., sufficient accuracy and specificity) and possess a level of sensitivity commensurate with the current state of scientific knowledge and risk. Likewise, the draft guidance recommends that manufacturers test for OSCS in crude heparin in each shipment before use, using a qualified test method that is suitable for detecting low levels of OSCS concentrations and is based on good scientific principles. Manufacturers should reject for use and control or destroy crude heparin found to contain any amount of OSCS and notify FDA of any such finding. The draft guidance also recommends that manufacturers identify and audit crude heparin suppliers and heparin API suppliers to ensure conformance to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP), employ the controls described in the guidance for industry “Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients,” and comply with the quality system regulations (as applicable).
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In the draft guidance, FDA advises drug and medical device manufacturers who receive and use crude heparin to manufacture drugs and medical devices to notify the Agency of crude heparin found to contain any amount of OSCS (for human drugs 21 CFR 314.81(b)(1)(ii); for animal drugs 21 CFR 514.80(b); for medical devices 21 CFR 803.50). The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.81(b)(1)(ii) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; in 21 CFR 514.80(b) under OMB control number 0910-0284; and in 21 CFR 803.50 under OMB control number 0910-0437.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of two draft guidances for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Rifaximin,” one for the 200-milligram (mg) strength (rifaximin-200) and one for the 550-mg strength (rifaximin-550). The recommendations provide specific guidance on the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for rifaximin tablets.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft guidances before it begins work on the final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidances by April 13, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidances to
Doan T. Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8608.
In the
Xifaxan (rifaximin) 200-mg tablets, approved by FDA in May 2004, are indicated for the treatment of patients (≥ 12 years of age) with travelers' diarrhea caused by noninvasive strains of
In November 2011, FDA posted on its Web site a draft guidance for industry on the Agency's recommendations for BE studies to support ANDAs for rifaximin-200 (Draft Rifaximin-200 BE Recommendations). FDA is now issuing a draft guidance for industry on BE recommendations for generic rifaximin-550 (Draft Rifaximin-550 BE Recommendations).
In May 2008, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Salix), manufacturer of the RLD, Xifaxan (200 mg), filed a citizen petition requesting that FDA refuse to receive for substantive review, or approve, ANDAs for generic rifaximin-200 unless the ANDAs contain certain data to demonstrate BE (Docket No. FDA-2008-P-0300). FDA is reviewing the issues raised in the petition and will consider any comments on the Draft Rifaximin-200 BE Recommendations before responding to Salix's citizen petition and finalizing its BE recommendations for rifaximin-200.
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of two draft guidances for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Nitroglycerin,” one for nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products and one for nitroglycerin metered aerosol/sublingual products. The recommendations provide specific guidance on the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for these products. The draft guidances are revised versions of previously published draft guidances on the subject.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the draft guidances before it begins work on the final versions of the guidances, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidances by April 13, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidances to
Doan T. Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-600), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8608.
In the
Nitrolingual Pumpspray (nitroglycerin lingual spray), approved by FDA in October 1985, is a metered dose spray indicated for acute relief of an attack or prophylaxis of angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease. Nitromist (nitroglycerin lingual aerosol), approved by FDA in November 2006, is another metered dose spray indicated for acute relief of an attack or acute prophylaxis of angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease. Nitrolingual Pumpspray and Nitromist are designated as reference listed drugs (RLDs), and therefore any ANDAs for generic nitroglycerin lingual spray or generic nitroglycerin lingual aerosol must demonstrate BE to the relevant RLD prior to approval. There are no approved ANDAs for these products.
In February 2010, FDA posted on its Web site a draft guidance for industry on the Agency's recommendations for BE studies to support ANDAs for nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products (Draft Nitroglycerin Spray BE Recommendations of February 2010). In that draft guidance, FDA recommended three studies to demonstrate BE of generic nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products: An in vivo fasting study, an in vitro study of unit dose and uniformity of unit dose, and an in vitro study of priming and tail off.
In March 2010, FDA posted on its Web site a draft guidance for industry on the Agency's recommendations for BE studies to support ANDAs for nitroglycerin metered aerosol/sublingual products (Draft Nitroglycerin Aerosol BE Recommendations of March 2010). In that draft guidance, FDA recommended three studies to demonstrate BE of generic nitroglycerin metered aerosol/sublingual products: An in vivo fasting study, an in vitro study of unit dose and uniformity of unit dose, and an in vitro study of priming and tail off.
FDA has reconsidered the recommendations for both of these draft guidances and has decided to revise them. In November 2011, FDA withdrew the Draft Nitroglycerin Spray BE Recommendations of February 2010 and the Draft Nitroglycerin Aerosol BE Recommendations of March 2010. FDA is now issuing revised draft guidances for industry on BE recommendations for nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products (Revised Draft Nitroglycerin Spray BE Recommendations) and nitroglycerin metered aerosol/sublingual products (Revised Draft Nitroglycerin Aerosol BE Recommendations). In these revised draft guidances, FDA recommends one
In December 2010, G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH and Company KG (Pohl), manufacturer of the RLD Nitrolingual Pumpspray, filed a citizen petition challenging FDA's Draft Nitroglycerin Spray BE Recommendations of February 2010 (Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0648). FDA is reviewing the issues raised in the petition and will consider any comments on the Revised Draft Nitroglycerin Spray BE Recommendations before responding to Pohl's citizen petition and finalizing its BE recommendation for nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products.
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the design of BE studies to support ANDAs for nitroglycerin metered spray/sublingual products and nitroglycerin metered aerosol/sublingual products. They do not create or confer any rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Nicole
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting entitled “Antiparasitic Drug Use and Resistance in Ruminants and Equines.” The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the current state of anthelmintic resistance in the United States and worldwide, tools for the evaluation of antiparasitic resistance, evaluation of the effectiveness of drugs against resistant parasites, and the scientific rationale for the use of combinations of antiparasitic drugs in ruminants and equines.
Registration is not required for this meeting; however, early arrival is recommended because seating may be limited. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Aleta Sindelar, (see
The main purpose of the meeting is to explore and discuss ways in which antiparasitic drugs can be used, alone or in combination, to maximize antiparasitic drug efficacy and minimize parasitic resistance in ruminant and equine species. Other topics for discussion include:
(1) The current state of anthelmintic resistance in the United States and in other parts of the world;
(2) The factors that have contributed to the development of anthelmintic resistance;
(3) The role of refugia in the management of anthelmintic resistance;
(4) The use of mathematical modeling as a tool for evaluating resistance;
(5) The use of the fecal egg count reduction test in the detection and management of anthelmintic resistance; and
(6) Ways to maximize the effectiveness of anthelmintics for today and the future.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee scheduled for February 29, 2012 is cancelled. This meeting was announced in the
Bryan Emery or Pearl Muckelvene,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Caryn Cohen at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
1.
2.
3.
The Wingspan Stent System with Gateway PTA Balloon Catheter has been approved under a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) (H050001) for the following indications: “The Wingspan Stent System with Gateway PTA Balloon Catheter is indicated for use in improving cerebral artery lumen diameter in patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, refractory to medical therapy, in intracranial vessels with ≥ 50% stenosis that are accessible to the system.”
Interim results and analyses of data from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, “Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis” (SAMMPRIS), published in the
FDA recently received a citizen's petition seeking withdrawal of the HDE approval and recall of Wingspan stents currently on the market. The petitions are available for public review and comment at
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before March 9, 2012. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before March 1, 2012. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 2, 2012.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact James Clark,
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection of voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on its advisory committees or panels notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives to serve on advisory committees and/or panels for which vacancies currently exist or are expected to occur in the near future. Nominees recommended to serve as a voting or nonvoting consumer representative may either be self-nominated or may be nominated by a consumer organization. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies and for those that will or may occur through February 2013.
Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests on an FDA advisory committee or panel may send a letter or email stating that interest to FDA (see
All statements of interest from consumer organizations interested in participating in the selection process and consumer representative nominations should be sent electronically to
Doreen Brandes, Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5122, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8858,
For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the persons listed in table 2 in the
FDA is requesting nominations for voting and/or nonvoting consumer representatives for the vacancies listed in table 1 of this document:
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and adequacy of labeling of marketed and investigational allergenic biological products or materials that are administered to humans for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of allergies and allergic disease, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs of its findings.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the treatment of neurologic diseases and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter (non-prescription) human drug products, or any other FDA-regulated product, for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human symptoms and diseases and advises the Commissioner either on the promulgation of monographs establishing conditions under which these drugs are generally recognized as
The Committee reviews and evaluates (1) Developing appropriate quality standards and regulations for mammography facilities; (2) developing appropriate standards and regulations for bodies accrediting mammography facilities under this program; (3) developing regulations with respect to sanctions; (4) developing procedures for monitoring compliance with standards; (5) establishing a mechanism to investigate consumer complaints; (6) reporting new developments concerning breast imaging that should be considered in the oversight of mammography facilities; and (7) determining whether there exists a shortage of mammography facilities in rural and health professional shortage areas and determining the effects of personnel on access to the services of such facilities in such areas; (8) determining whether there will exist a sufficient number of medical physicists after October 1, 1999; and (9) determining the costs and benefits of compliance with these requirements.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes recommendations for their regulation. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, advises on the classification or reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories; advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols; reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain devices from the application of portions of the Act; advises on the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the Agency to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs on issues relating to the design of clinical studies regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices.
Persons nominated for membership as consumer representatives on the committees or panels should meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate ties to consumer and community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative should be able to represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committees on scientific issues that affect consumers.
Selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and public advocacy groups. These organizations recommend nominees for the Agency's selection. Representatives from the consumer health branches of Federal, State, and local governments also may participate in the selection process. Any consumer organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate voting or nonvoting member to represent consumer interests should send a letter stating that interest to FDA (see
Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will compile a list of consumer organizations that will participate in the selection process and will forward to each such organization a ballot listing three to five qualified nominees selected by the Agency based on the nominations received, together with each nominee's current curriculum vitae or resume. Ballots are to be filled out and returned to FDA within 30 days. The nominee receiving the highest number of votes ordinarily will be selected to serve as the member representing consumer interests for that particular advisory committee or panel.
Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent consumer interests on the Agency's advisory committees or panels. Self-nominations are also accepted. Potential candidates will be required to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
All nominations should include: A cover letter; a curriculum vitae or resume that includes the nominee's home or office address, telephone number, and email address; and a list of consumer or community-based organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate active participation.
Nominations also should specify the advisory committee(s) or panel(s) for which the nominee is recommended. In addition, nominations should include confirmation that the nominee is aware of the nomination and is willing to serve as a member of the advisory committee or panel if selected. The term of office is up to 4 years.
FDA will review all nominations received within the specified timeframes and prepare a ballot containing the names of three to five qualified nominees. Names not selected will remain on a list of eligible nominees and be reviewed periodically by FDA to determine continued interest. Upon selecting qualified nominees for the ballot, FDA will provide those consumer organizations that are participating in the selection process with the opportunity to vote on the listed nominees. Only organizations vote in the selection process. Persons who nominate themselves to serve as voting or nonvoting consumer representatives will not participate in the selection process.
FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, and individuals with physical disabilities are adequately represented on its advisory committees and panels and, therefore, encourages nominations for appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
For questions relating to specific advisory committees or panels, contact the following persons listed in table 2 of this document:
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
Under the Hill-Burton Act, the Government provides grants and loans for construction or renovation of health care facilities. As a condition of receiving this construction assistance, facilities are required to provide services to persons unable to pay. A condition of receiving this assistance requires facilities to provide periodic assurances that the required level of uncompensated care is being provided, and that certain notification and record keeping procedures are being followed. These standard requirements are referred to as the uncompensated services assurance.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Email comments to
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
Time will be provided for public comments, but will be limited to five minutes each. Comments are to be submitted in writing no later than 5 p.m. ET on February 24, 2012.
This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 76 FR 77840-778411 dated December 14 2011).
This notice reflects organizational changes to the Health Resources and Services Administration. Specifically, this notice updates the functional statement for the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (RA5): (1) Establish the Office of External Engagement (RA57); (2) transfer some of the functions currently within the Office of Policy Analysis (RA53) into the newly established Office of External Engagement (RA57) and; (3) transfer one of the functions currently within the Office of Policy Analysis (RA53) into the Office of the Director (RA5).
Delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
The Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (RA5) is headed by the Director, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (RA5) includes the following components:
(1) Office of the Director (RA5);
(2) Office of Policy Analysis (RA53);
(3) Office of Research and Evaluation (RA56); and
(4) Office of External Engagement (RA57).
(1) Delete the functional statement for the Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation (RA5) and replace in its entirety.
(1) Provides Agency-wide leadership for policy development, data collection and management, major analytic activities, research, and evaluation; (2) develops HRSA-wide policies; (3) participates with HRSA organizations in developing strategic plans for their component; (4) coordinates the Agency's long term strategic planning process; (5) conducts and/or guides analyses, research, and program evaluation; (6) develops annual performance plans; (7) analyzes budgetary data with regard to planning guidelines; (8) develops and produces performance reports required under the Government Performance and Accountability Report and OMB; (9) coordinates the Agency's participation in Department and Federal initiatives; (10) as requested, develops, implements, and coordinates policy processes for the agency for key major cross-cutting policy issues; (11) facilitates policy development by maintaining analytic liaison between the Administrator, other OPDIVs, Office of the Secretary staff components, and other Departments on critical matters involving program policy undertaken in the Agency; (12) provides data analyses, graphics presentations, briefing materials, and analyses on short notice to support the immediate needs of the Administrator and Senior Leadership; (13) conducts special studies and analyses and/or provides analytic support and information to the Administrator and Senior Leadership needed to support the Agency's goals and directions; and (14) collaborates with Office of Operations in the development of budgets, performance plans, and other administration reporting requirements.
(1) Serves as the principal Agency resource for policy analysis; (2) analyzes issues arising from legislation, budget proposals, regulatory actions, and other program or policy actions; (3) serves as focal point within HRSA for analysis of healthcare payment systems and financing issues; (4) collaborates with HHS Agencies to examine the impact of Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) on HRSA grantees and safety net providers; and (5) provides Agency leadership guidance on policy development.
(1) Serves as the principal source of leadership and advice on program information and research; (2) analyzes and coordinates the Agency's need for information and data for use in the management and direction of Agency programs; (3) manages an Agency-wide information and data group as well as an Agency-wide research group; (4) maintains an inventory of HRSA databases; (5) provides technical assistance to HRSA staff in database development, maintenance, analysis, and distribution; (6) promotes the availability of HRSA data through web sites and other on-line applications; (7) conducts, oversees, and fosters high quality research across HRSA programmatic interests; (8) develops an annual research agenda for the Agency; (9) conducts, leads, and/or participates with HRSA staff in the development of research and demonstration projects; (10) coordinates HRSA participation in institutional review boards and the protection of human subjects; (11) conducts, guides, and/or participates in major program evaluation efforts and prepares reports on HRSA program efficiencies; and (12) manages HRSA activity related to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other OMB policies.
(1) Serves as the principal Agency resource for facilitating external engagement; (2) coordinates the Agency's intergovernmental activities; (3) provides the Administrator with a single point of contact on all activities related to important state and local government, stakeholder association, and interest group activities; (4) coordinates Agency cross-Bureau cooperative agreements and activities with organizations such as the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislature, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of Counties, and National Association of County and City Health Officials; (5) interacts with various commissions such as the Delta Regional Authority, Appalachian Regional Commission, and on the Denali Commission; (6) serves as the primary liaison to Department intergovernmental staff; and (7) serves as the coordinator for the Government Accountability Office and reports on HRSA programs and activities.
All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.
This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4052-DR), dated February 1, 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 February 1, 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 State of Alabama resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of January 22-23, 2012, 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 Individual Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance 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 time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Joe M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Chilton and Jefferson Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Utah (FEMA-4053-DR), dated February 1, 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 February 1, 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 State of Utah resulting from a severe storm during the period of November 30 to December 1, 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 area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. 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, Gary R. Stanley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Utah have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Davis County for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Utah are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4054-DR), dated February 2, 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 February 2, 2012, the President issued a
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Alaska resulting from a severe storm during the period of November 15-17, 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 State. 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, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Alaska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
The Kenai Peninsula Borough for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Alaska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) is holding a public meeting on February 24, 2012 in Arlington, VA.
The meeting will take place on February 24, 2012. The session is open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Send written statements and requests to make oral statements to the contact person in the
The meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport in Salons III and IV at 2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Richard Collins, Program Specialist (Emergency Management), DHS/FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street—CC858, Mail Stop 3025, Arlington, VA 20598-3025; telephone (202) 212-4357; fax (703) 305-0837; or email
The role and functions of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) are described in 44 CFR 351.10(a) and 351.11(a). The FRPCC is holding a public meeting on February 24, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., at the Radisson Hotel Reagan National Airport in Salons I, II and III at 2020 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Please note that the meeting may close early. This meeting is open to the public. Public meeting participants must pre-register to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register, please provide your name and telephone number by close of business on February 17, 2012, to the individual listed in the
The tentative agenda for the FRPCC meeting includes: (1) Introductions, (2) Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8) Relationship to the National Response Framework (NRF), (3) FRPCC Charter Re-Write Update, (4) Nuclear Incident Response Team Project Update, (5) Radiation Team Resource Typing Update, (6) Nuclear Sector Specific Agency Update, (7) Human Capital Crisis In Radiation Safety. The FRPCC Co-Chairs shall conduct the meeting in a way that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Reasonable provisions will be made, if time permits, for oral statements from the public of not more than five minutes in length. Any member of the public who wishes to make an oral statement at the meeting should send a written request for time by close of business on February 17, 2012, to the individual listed in the
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please write or call the individual listed in the
44 CFR 351.10(a); 351.11(a).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
FEMA is providing notice of its implementation of the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-74) (DARFA). DARFA provides the Administrator of FEMA with the authority to waive certain debts
FEMA's waiver procedures are effective February 13, 2012.
“FEMA Directive: Waiving Debts Pursuant to the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011” can be viewed at
Keith Turi, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, 501 C Street SW., Washington, DC, telephone (202) 646-3642 (this is not a toll-free number). If you have any questions regarding a Notice of Debt or recoupment action, please contact the Recoupment Hotline at 1-800-816-1122. If you have a speech disability or hearing loss and use a TTY, call 1-800-462-7585 directly; if you use 711 or Video Relay Service (VRS), call 800-816-1122.
Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) and the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-204), as implemented by 31 CFR Part 901, 31 CFR 902.2, and 6 CFR Part 11, FEMA is required to recover funds improperly paid (overpayments). On March 15, 2011, FEMA published a notice in the
Some members of Congress expressed concern about the fairness of FEMA collecting overpayments from disaster survivors when the overpayment was the result of FEMA error and where a significant amount of time had elapsed before FEMA provided actual notice of the debt. As a result of these concerns, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-74) (DARFA). Pursuant to DARFA, FEMA may determine to waive a debt arising from improper payments provided to disaster survivors for disasters declared between August 28, 2005 and December 31, 2010 if:
(1) The debt does not involve fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation by the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim; and
(2) The assistance was distributed based on FEMA error; and
(3) There was no fault on behalf of the debtor; and
(4) The collection of the debt would be “against equity and good conscience.”
(5) In addition, if all four conditions above are met but the debtor's Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is greater than $90,000, FEMA may approve no more than a partial waiver.
FEMA may determine it would be against equity and good conscience to collect a debt where collection would cause serious financial hardship; where the debtor has spent the overpayment for the reason it was provided or other disaster related needs and has no present ability to reclaim the funds; more than 36 months have elapsed between the time FEMA awarded the assistance and the date final notification was provided to the debtor of the debt; and/or other personal circumstances exist where collection would be unconscionable.
If FEMA determines to waive a debt pursuant to the authority provided in DARFA, the debt will cease to exist, FEMA will cease further debt collection activity with respect to the debt waived, and reimburse any payments or fees previously paid on the debt. If FEMA determines that a debt is not waived, the debtor will be notified of payment options.
DARFA is a time-limited authority that only applies to very particular debts arising from FEMA individual assistance overpayments for specific disaster events. It is thus extraordinary authority and the waiver process that results from it does not apply to debts arising from delivery of any other FEMA or other Federal assistance program.
Pub. L. 112-74; 31 U.S.C. 3701
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
The UC/New York Towns qualification/requalification process obtains information yearly to establish the participating population used to calculate the final grant CDBG allocations for all CDBG grantees for the next fiscal year.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2506-0170) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the Information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
This notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below, by March 14, 2012.
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: Cameron Shaw, Permit Coordinator).
Cameron Shaw, telephone (904) 731-3191; facsimile (904) 731-3045.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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 comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Applicant requests authorization to take (capture, transport, temporarily house, conduct captive breeding, release and monitor populations), the yellowcheek darter (
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of Indiana bats (
Applicant requests authorization to take Florida grasshopper sparrows (
Applicant requests authorization to take Puerto Rican boa (
Applicant requests amendment of permit to allow for the take of Virginia big-eared bats (
Applicant requests authorization to take Cape Sable seaside sparrows (
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of Indiana bats (
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of Indiana bats (
Applicant requests authorization for take (capture, survey, handle, hold in captivity, propagate and release), for the purpose of collecting scientific data and artificial propagation research, the following freshwater mussel species:
This work will be conducted in the Cumberland, Green, Kentucky, Licking, Salt and Ohio River basins.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is segregating public lands located in the State of Arizona from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining law, but excluding the mineral leasing or materials sale laws, for a period of up to 2 years. This is for the purpose of protecting potential sites for future solar energy development while they are being analyzed in the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP). The public lands contained in this segregation total approximately 20,776 acres in Yuma County.
This segregation is effective on February 13, 2012.
Lane Cowger, BLM Deputy Project Manager; telephone: 602-417-9612; address: One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427; or email:
This segregation of public lands corresponds with the analysis of these same public lands as a proposed Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) in the RDEP. The analysis will establish whether some or all of these lands are suitable for utility-scale solar energy development. Decisions about the suitability of the lands as a SEZ will be included in the RDEP record of decision, which is scheduled to be completed in late 2012. More information on the RDEP is available on the project Web site at:
The following described lands to be segregated are located in Yuma County, Arizona:
The areas described aggregate 20,776 acres, more or less, in Yuma County.
In order to protect potential sites for future solar energy development, the BLM is segregating the lands under the authority contained in 43 CFR 2091.3-1(e) and 43 CFR 2804.25(e) for a period of up to 2 years, subject to valid existing rights. This segregation period will commence on February 13, 2012. The public lands involved in this notice will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land and mining laws, but not the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 or the Materials Act of 1947. It has been determined that this segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands that have been identified by the BLM as having potential for solar energy generation.
The temporary segregation period will terminate and the lands will automatically reopen to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, on February 13, 2014 unless, prior to the end of the 2-year period, the BLM publishes a
43 CFR 2091.3-1(e), 43 CFR 2804.25(e).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is segregating public lands located in Imperial County, California, from appropriation under the public land laws including the Mining Law, but not the Mineral Leasing or Material Sales Acts, for a period of 2 years for the purpose of processing a wind energy right-of-way (ROW) application for the Ocotillo Express Wind Project. The public land contained in this segregation totals approximately 12,436 acres.
Effective Date: This segregation is effective on February 13, 2012.
Cedric Perry, BLM Project Manager, telephone (951) 697-5388; address 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, California 92553; email
The BLM is segregating the following described public lands, located in Imperial County, California, subject to valid existing rights, from appropriation under the public land laws and Mining Laws, but not the Mineral Leasing Laws or the Material Sale Law.
Containing 12,436 acres.
This segregation is necessary to process the ROW application filed by Pattern Energy Group for the Ocotillo Express Wind Project on the above described lands while maintaining the status quo. The BLM is segregating the lands under the authority contained in 43 CFR 2091.3-1(e) and 2804.25(e) for a period of 2 years, subject to valid existing rights. This 2-year segregation period will commence on February 13, 2012. The public lands involved in this closure will be segregated from appropriation under the public land and mining laws, but not the mineral leasing or material sale laws. It has been determined that this segregation is necessary for the orderly administration of the public lands.
The segregation period will terminate and the lands will automatically reopen to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, if one of the following events occurs: (1) Upon the BLM's issuance of a decision regarding whether to issue a ROW authorization for the Ocotillo Express Project; (2) upon publication of a
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of Park Boundary Revision.
National Park Service, Glenna F. Vigil, Chief, Land Resources Program Center, Intermountain Region, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225-0287, (303) 969-2610.
The effective date of this boundary revision is February 13, 2012.
Notice is hereby given that, under 16 U.S.C. 460l-9(c)(1), the boundary of Fort Laramie National Historic Site is modified to include an additional 33.75 acres of land consisting of two tracts. Tract 01-121 (12.51 acres) was acquired as an uneconomic remnant during the purchase of larger tracts within the Ft. Laramie National Historic Site boundary, and Tract 01-136 (21.24 acres) was acquired by donation from the Corn Creek Irrigation District. Both tracts are located in Goshen County, Wyoming. Tract 01-121 is immediately adjacent to the current southern boundary of the Site; and, Tract 01-136 is located immediately adjacent to the current southeastern boundary of the Site. The boundary revision is depicted on National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Fort Laramie National Historic Site Proposed Boundary Revision Map; Map Number 375/106,732A dated April 2011. The map is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Intermountain Region Land Resources Program Center, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, CO 80225-0287; and, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
16 U.S.C. 460l—9 (c)(1) provides that after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the
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) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Immersion Corporation on February 7, 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 mobile electronic devices incorporating haptics. The complaint names as respondents Motorola Mobility, Inc. of IL; and Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. of IL.
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would 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 requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 2875”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
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 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
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 the presiding administrative law judge's initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11) granting a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned investigation on the basis of a settlement agreement.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. 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 Commission instituted this investigation on March 7, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Graco Children's Products Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia (“Graco”). 76 FR 12368 (Mar. 7, 2011). The complaint named as the sole proposed respondent Baby Trend, Inc. of Ontario, California (“Baby Trend”), and alleged a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain strollers and playards by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,669,225; 7,044,497; 7,188,858; 7,404,569; and 6,510,570.
On January 6, 2012, Graco and Baby Trend jointly moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety on the basis of a settlement agreement. On January 18, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. Order No. 11 at 2-3.
No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
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 sections 210.21 and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
By Notice dated September 28, 2011, and published in the
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Noramco, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Alaska.
The following changes have occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
• Alaska's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the week ending January 7, 2012 rose to meet the 6% threshold to trigger “on” to the EB program. Alaska's payable period in the Extended Benefits program began January 22, 2012.
The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at:
The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces a change in status of the payable periods in the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 2008 (EUC08) program for Alaska.
Public law 112-78 extended provisions in Public Law 111-92 which amended prior laws to create a Third and Fourth Tier of benefits within the EUC08 program for qualified unemployed workers claiming benefits in high unemployment states. The Department of Labor produces a trigger notice indicating which states qualify for EUC08 benefits within Tiers Three and Four and provides the beginning and ending dates of payable periods for each qualifying state. The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EUC08 program can be found at:
The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EUC08 status:
• Alaska's 13-week insured unemployment rate for the week ending January 7, 2012, rose to meet the 6% threshold to trigger “on” to Tier 4 of the EUC08 program. The payable period for Alaska in Tier Four of EUC08 began January 22, 2012. As a result, the current maximum potential entitlement for claimants in Alaska in the EUC08 program will increase from 47 weeks to 53 weeks.
The duration of benefits payable in the EUC program, and the terms and conditions under which they are payable, are governed by Public Laws 110-252, 110-449, 111-5, 111-92, 111-118, 111-144, 111-157, 111-205, 111-312, and 112-78, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. Persons who believe they may be entitled to additional benefits under the EUC08 program, or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their State Workforce Agency.
Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department) is seeking public comment on two proposed UI Performs Core Measures for UI Integrity: (1) UI Improper Payments; and (2) UI Overpayment Recovery.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before March 14, 2012.
Written comments may be submitted to the address specified below. All comments will be made available to the public.
•
•
Please submit your comments by only one method. The Department will not review comments received by means other than those listed above or that are received after the comment period has closed. The Department will post all comments received on
IPERA [Pub. L. 111-204 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note)] amended the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) [Pub. L. 107-300 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note)] and established several criteria that Federal agencies must meet in order to be in compliance with the law. According to section 3(a)(3) of IPERA:
The term `compliance' means that the agency (F) has reported an improper payment rate of less than 10 percent for each program and activity for which an estimate was published under section 2(b) of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note).
For the 2010 IPIA reporting period, the Department reported an improper payment rate of 11.2 percent (10.6 percent overpayment rate and 0.6 percent underpayment rate) in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Agency Financial Report (AFR), p. 179, (
In addition, IPERA establishes requirements for payment recapture audits. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines in Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123, Part I(B)(3), established the follow requirements that Federal agencies must follow:
[A]ll agencies are required to establish annual targets for their payment recapture audit programs that will drive their annual performance. The targets shall be based on the rate of recovery (
Agencies have the discretion to set their own payment recapture targets for review and approval by OMB, but agencies shall strive to achieve annual recapture targets of at least 85 percent within three years (with the first reporting year being FY 2011, the second FY 2012, and the third FY 2013).
In response, the Department has developed statistical models to set recovery targets based on historical performance data and the Administration's economic assumptions. These targets have been reviewed by OMB and published in the Department's FY 2011 AFR, p. 215.
Because the UI improper payment rate exceeds the 10 percent minimum performance level in IPERA, the Department has developed an Integrity Strategic Plan to bring the UI program into compliance. In June 2011, the Department issued a “call to action” in Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 19-11 to ensure that UI integrity is a top priority and to provide tools and support for State agencies to develop strategic plans to reduce improper payments.
UIPL No. 33-11 (September 21, 2011) launched an initiative to reduce unacceptably high levels of improper payments in six “High Priority” States. The Department will work closely with these States to support cross-functional teams and develop strategic plans to reduce improper payments below the 10 percent IPERA criterion. UIPL No. 34-11 (September 28, 2011) provided information on the definition and implementation of the UI Performs Benefit Year Earnings Core Measure to reduce the leading cause of UI improper payments—claimants who return to work and who continue to claim and collect UI benefits.
This notice describes and solicits comments on two proposed performance measures to meet the IPERA statutory requirements. The Department establishes measures that capture key dimensions of UI program performance in accordance with applicable legislation and sets criteria or target levels defining acceptable performance according to the measure. If a State's performance does not attain these levels, the State must take corrective action through its annual State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) (OMB No. 1205-0132, Expiration Date 10/31/2014). Comments should be submitted by the date and to the address provided in the addresses section of this notice.
•
The amounts coded in h5 include overpayment codes 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 in data element ei2 (Key Week Action). Overpayments attributable to a State workforce agency other than the State agency that selected and audited the payment are excluded (Prior Agency Action (data element ei6) codes 90 to 99).
•
The amounts coded in h6 include underpayment codes 20, 21, and 22 in data element ei2 (Key Week Action). Underpayments attributable to a State workforce agency other than the State agency that selected and audited the payment are excluded (Prior Agency Action (data element ei6) codes 90 to 99).
•
The Annual Report overpayment (OP) rate is the estimate of:
It is derived from the weekly BAM samples; each week's sample result is weighted by the number of paid UI weeks in the BAM survey population.
The Annual Report underpayment (UP) rate is the estimate of:
It is derived from the weekly BAM samples; each week's sample result is weighted by the number of paid UI weeks in the BAM survey population.
The improper payment (IP) rate (expressed as a percentage) is the sum of the Annual Report overpayment rate plus the underpayment rate:
IP = OP + UP.
Information on the BAM program is available at
• Total Overpayments Recovered—section C, the sum of line 302, columns 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, and 23.
• Total Overpayments Established Minus Overpayments Waived—section A, the sum of line 101, columns 4, 5, and 21, and line 103, columns 4, 5, and 21, minus section C, the sum of line 308, columns 13, 14, and 23.
As required by the IPERA implementing guidance, ETA has developed UI overpayment recovery targets for FY 2011, FY 2012 and FY 2013. According to Part I(B)(3) of OMB's IPERA guidelines, “Issuance of Revised Parts I and II to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123” (April 14, 2011):
The UI recovery targets involve aggregating overpayments established and recovered under three UI program areas: State UI, permanent Extended Benefits (EB) and the temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) programs. Recoveries are made using the traditional tools available to States in addition to the Federal Tax Offset Program (TOP), implemented by only three States as of the date of the analysis. The recovery targets reflect separate methodologies for projecting recoveries or recovery rates for (a) State UI plus EB recoveries obtained using traditional tools; (b) recoveries of EUC overpayments made using traditional tools; and (c) recoveries of State UI, EB, and EUC overpayments through TOP. Administration economic assumptions as of the time of the analysis were taken into consideration for all projections.
a.
b.
c.
The following table summarizes the UI overpayment recovery rate targets, rounded down to the nearest integer. The UI recovery rates are constructed by dividing UI overpayment recoveries reported on the ETA 227 UI/EB and EUC reports by overpayments established, minus overpayments waived because they are unrecoverable under State law or policy. The sharp increase in recovery targets for FY 2012 and FY 2013 reflects the expected impact of the TOP program.
These targets are based on the following assumptions:
• The TUR and State UI/EB outlays will not differ significantly from the Administration assumptions in the FY 2012 Budget Midsession Review. The TUR is projected as part of the Administration economic assumptions, and ETA forecasts UI and EB outlays based on the TUR and other economic assumptions. Because amounts of overpayments made, established, and recovered are highly sensitive to economic conditions, any significant change in these economic assumptions will affect the recovery rate estimates of the model.
• Recovery activity for overpayments established for the EUC program is expected to continue into FY 2013 with residual recoveries for overpayments established after the expiration of the EUC program.
• State agencies will begin to participate in TOP according to the adoption path reflected in the model. Based on Treasury information on State plans for adopting TOP and implementation status, the model assumes that by the end of FY 2011 three States will have enrolled in TOP; by the end of FY 2012, 26 States will participate; and by the end of FY 2013 and beyond, 49 States will participate. The implementation model is quarterly because data from the first three States suggest that over 95 percent of recoveries by TOP occur in the first or second calendar quarters, so the calendar quarter during which a State begins to participate in TOP is critical for estimates of first-year recoveries. Changes in the TOP implementation schedule will have a significant impact on recovery rates.
It is important to note that these estimates are based on actual counts of UI overpayments identified and recovered by the State agencies and reported on the ETA 227 reports for the FY 1986 to the third quarter of FY 2011 period, not the estimated UI overpayment rates and amounts that are reported in the Department's AFR for the IPIA, which are based on the results of the BAM audits of paid claims samples. Targets are also adjusted to exclude overpayments that are waived as unrecoverable by State agencies, according to the definition in the UI Reports Handbook (ET Handbook 401, 4th edition).
Additionally, although these targets were developed using historical FY counts of UI overpayments identified and recovered as reported on the ETA 227, they may be applied to a calendar year measurement cycle. As actual data on recoveries accumulate—driven largely by the rate at which States implement TOP—the out-year targets are likely to be revised.
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget.
Notice; correction to final policy letter.
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is making a correction to the Final Policy Letter “Performance of Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions” (76 FR 56227-56242, September 12, 2011) to clarify that the Policy Letter applies to both Civilian and Defense Executive Branch Departments and Agencies. The original publication of the policy letter was inadvertently addressed only to the Heads of The Civilian Executive Departments and Agencies. Also, OFPP has corrected the citation for additional guidance about conduct of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), because the original notice referenced an incorrect Part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The corrections below should be used in place of text previously published in the September 12, 2011 notice. All other information from the published Final Policy remains unchanged. The full text of the original notice is available at
Mathew Blum, OFPP, (202) 395-4953 or
In the
In the
Agencies shall also refer to the requirements in FAR Part 35 regarding requirements pertaining to the conduct of FFRDCs.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 16, 2012.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Merger Request Pursuant to Part 708b of NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to exemption (8).
2. Consideration of Supervisory Activities (4). Closed pursuant to some or all of the following: exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B) and 9(ii).
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by March 14, 2012. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Polly A. Penhale at the above address or (703) 292-7420.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
The applications received are as follows:
Take and Import into the U.S.A. The applicant plans to salvage feathers and bones from dead seabird carcasses. The samples will be decontaminated and cleaned prior to shipment back to the home institution. The samples are to be used for K-12 educational outreach activities. In general, the bird parts will be an example of adaptation to be shown in conjunction with local (North American) bird parts.
McMurdo Sound region, Antarctica.
October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2015.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Availability.
A. Jason Lising, Project Manager, Research and Test Reactor Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone: 301-415-3841; fax number: 301-415-3031; email:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a renewed Facility License No. R-116, to be held by the Regents of the University of California (the licensee), which would authorize continued operation of the University of California, Irvine Nuclear Reactor Facility (UCINRF), located in Irvine, Orange County, California. Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the
The proposed action would renew Facility License No. R-116 for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed license. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated October 18, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated October 23, and October 31, 1999, April 24, 2000, January 27, May 17, July 14, and October 20, 2010, June 7, June 24, August 1, October 3, October 5, and December 2, 2011 (2 letters). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the existing license remains in effect until the NRC takes final action on the renewal application.
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of the UCINRF to routinely provide teaching opportunities, research, and services to numerous institutions for a period of 20 years.
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action to issue a renewed Facility License No. R-116 to allow continued operation of the UCINRF for a period of 20 years and concludes there is reasonable assurance that the UCINRF will continue to operate safely for the additional period of time. The details of the NRC staff safety evaluation will be provided with the renewed license that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving its license renewal application. This document contains the environmental assessment of the proposed action.
The UCINRF is located on the main campus of the University of California, Irvine and is a part of Rowland Hall. The reactor is housed in the basement of the multipurpose building constructed with a structural steel frame and reinforced concrete floors acting as diaphragms in distributing loads to vertically resisting elements. The reactor area is comprised of the reactor room, the control room, and two laboratories which total approximately 186 square meters (2000 square feet) all located in the basement of Rowland Hall. Possession of both a door key and a key card are needed to enter the facility. Rowland Hall is one of many University buildings located around a circular field. The nearest permanent residences are located approximately 280 meters (310 yards) south east of Rowland Hall. The nearest dormitories are located approximately 180 meters (200 yards) west of the reactor.
The UCINRF is a pool-type, light water moderated and cooled research reactor licensed to operate at a steady-state power level of 250 kilowatt thermal power (kW). The reactor is also licensed to operate in a pulse mode. The fuel is located at the bottom of an aluminum tank 3 meters wide by 4.6 meters long and 7.6 meters deep (10 feet wide by 15 feet long and 25 feet deep) with a volume of approximately 87,000 liters (23,000 gallons), supported by a reinforced concrete foundation. The reactor is fueled with standard low-enriched TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotope production, General Atomics) uranium fuel. A detailed description of the reactor can be found in the UCINRF Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Since the operating license was issued on November 24, 1969, facility modifications have been minor as outlined in SAR Section 1.4.
The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design or operating conditions as part of the application for license renewal. No changes are being made in the types or quantities of effluents that may be released off site. The licensee has systems in place for controlling the release of radiological effluents and implements a radiation protection program to monitor personnel exposures and releases of radioactive effluents. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the systems and radiation protection program are appropriate for the types and quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued operation of the reactor. Accordingly, there would be no increase in routine occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of license renewal. As discussed in the NRC staff safety evaluation, the proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents.
Therefore, license renewal would not change the environmental impact of facility operation. The NRC staff evaluated information contained in the licensee's application, as supplemented, and data reported to the NRC by the licensee for the last ten years of operation to determine the projected radiological impact of the facility on the environment during the period of the renewed license. The NRC staff found that releases of radioactive material and personnel exposures were all well within applicable regulatory limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that continued operation of the reactor would not have a significant environmental impact.
Gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged by the facility exhaust system at a volumetric flow rate of approximately 2.0 cubic meters per second (4300 cubic feet per minute) via vents located on the roof of the reactor building. Other release pathways do exist. However they are normally secured during reactor operation and have insignificant volumetric flow rates compared to the facility exhaust system. The only significant nuclide found in the gaseous effluent stream is Argon-41. Licensee calculations, based on operation, indicate that annual Argon-41 releases result in a maximum concentration of less than 1.7 E-10 microCuries per milliliter (∓Ci/ml) in a year over the last 10 years, which is below the limit of 1.0E-8 ∓Ci/ml specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B for air effluent releases. The NRC staff performed an independent calculation and found the licensee's calculation to be reasonable. Gaseous radioactive releases reported to the NRC in the licensee's annual reports were less than two percent of the air effluent concentration limits set by 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. The potential radiation dose to a member of the general public resulting from this concentration is less than 0.01 milliSieverts (mSv) (1 millirem (mrem)) and this demonstrates compliance with the dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) set by 10 CFR 20.1301. Additionally, this potential radiation dose demonstrates compliance with the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
The licensee disposes of radioactive liquid waste by transfer to the University's Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) department. Since 1992, the facility has had no radiological liquid effluent releases. Radioactive materials have been transferred and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the licensee's byproduct license. Currently, there are no plans to change any operating or radiological release practices or characteristics of the reactor during the license renewal period. During the past ten years, the licensee has transferred 15 gallons of liquid waste for a total of 3.2 milliCuries for proper disposal.
The EHS department oversees the handling of solid low-level radioactive waste generated at UCINRF. The bulk of the waste consists of sample waste. Upon removal from the facility, the waste enters the EHS Radioactive Waste Handling Program. The EHS department currently retains the waste for decay in storage. According to the licensee, no spent nuclear fuel has been shipped from the site to date. To comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the licensee has entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that provides that DOE retains title to the fuel utilized at the UCINRF and that DOE is obligated to take the fuel from the site for final disposition.
As described in past ten years of UCINRF annual reports, personnel exposures are well within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, and are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Personnel exposures are usually less than 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) per year with the maximum individual receiving 1.67 mSv (167 mrem) of whole body exposure in one year. No changes in reactor operation that would lead to an increase in occupational dose are expected as a result of the proposed action.
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to record and track the radiological impact of UCINRF operation on the surrounding unrestricted area. The program consists of quarterly exposure measurements at ten locations around the facility and at one control location away from any direct influence from the reactor. The locations have been chosen to monitor the confines of the reactor facility, more remote locations on campus and an off campus location that provides background radiation level information. Over the past ten years, the monitoring program has indicated that radiation exposures at the remote monitoring locations on campus were not significantly higher than at the offsite background monitoring locations. Year-to-year trends in exposures are consistent between monitoring locations. Also, no correlation exists
Accident scenarios are discussed in Chapter 13 of the UCINRF SAR. The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is the uncontrolled release of the gaseous fission products contained in the gap between the fuel and the fuel cladding in one fuel element to the reactor area and into the environment. The licensee conservatively calculated doses to facility personnel and the maximum potential dose to a member of the public. The NRC staff performed independent calculations to verify that the doses represent conservative estimates for the MHA. Occupational doses resulting from this accident would be well below 10 CFR Part 20 limit of 50 mSv (5000 mrem). Maximum doses for members of the public resulting from this accident would be well below 10 CFR Part 20 limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem). The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents.
The UCINRF core is cooled by a light water primary system consisting of the reactor pool and a heat removal system to remove heat from the reactor pool. Core cooling occurs by natural convection, with the heated coolant rising out of the core and into the bulk pool water. The large heat sink provided by the volume of primary coolant allows several hours of full-power operation without any secondary cooling. The heat removal system transfers heat to the University chilled water system via a 258 kW (880,000 BTU/hr) heat exchanger. During operation, the chilled water system is maintained at a higher pressure than the primary system to minimize the likelihood of primary system contamination entering the secondary system, and ultimately the environment. The licensee conducts tests which would detect leakage of the heat exchanger. A minor amount of heat removal from the pool occurs due to evaporation of coolant from the pool's surface. The small amount of replacement water is provided from the portable water system of the UCINRF.
Release of thermal effluents from the UCINRF will not have a significant effect on the environment. Given that the proposed action does not involve any change in the operation of the reactor and the heat load dissipated to the environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment or the local water supply.
The NRC has responsibilities that are derived from NEPA and from other environmental laws, which include the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice. The following presents a brief discussion of impacts associated with these laws and other requirements.
Federally-protected or State-protected listed species have not been found in the vicinity of the UCINRF. Effluents and emissions from the UCINRF have not had an impact on critical habitat.
The UCINRF is not located within any managed coastal zones; nor would the UCINRF effluents and emissions impact any managed costal zones. The UCINRF is located approximately 1.0 km (0.6) miles away from the boundary of the Costal Zone Management Area.
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists one historical site located approximately 6.6 km (4 miles) north of Rowland Hall, the Lighter than Airship Hangers. Given the distance between the facility and the Lighter than Airship Hangers, continued operation of the UCINRF will not impact any historical sites. Based on this information, the NRC staff finds that the potential impacts of the proposed action would have no adverse effect on historic and archaeological resources.
The licensee is not planning any water resource development projects, including any of the modifications relating to impounding a body of water, damming, diverting a stream or river, deepening a channel, irrigation, or altering a body of water for navigation or drainage.
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from the relicensing and the continued operation of the UCINRF. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general public residing around UCINRF, and all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from activities at the UCINRF.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the UCINRF—According to 2000 census data, 63.8 percent of the population (approximately 13,353,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of the UCINRF identified themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority group was Hispanic or Latino (approximately 5,524,000 persons or 41.4 percent), followed by “Some other race” (approximately 3,298,000 persons or about 24.7 percent). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 48.7 percent of the Orange County population identified themselves as minorities, with persons of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising the largest minority group (30.8 percent). According to census data 3-year average estimates for 2005-2007, the minority population of Orange County, as a percent of total population, had increased to 52.9 percent.
Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of the UCINRF—According to 2000 census data, approximately 383,700 families and 2,102,000 individuals (approximately 12.5 and 15.7 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-mile radius of the UCINRF were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four.
According to Census data in the 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, the median household income for the State of California was $58,361, while 13.0 percent of the state population and 9.7 percent of families were determined to be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Orange County had a higher median household income average ($71,601) and lower percentages (9.3 percent) of individuals and families (6.4 percent) living below the poverty level, respectively.
Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would mostly consist of radiological
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the UCINRF.
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC considered denying of the proposed action. If the NRC denied the request for license renewal, reactor operations would cease and decommissioning would be required. The NRC staff notes that, even with a renewed license, the UCINRF will eventually require decommissioning, at which time the environmental effects of decommissioning will occur. Decommissioning will be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan which would require a separate environmental review under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of facility operations would reduce or eliminate radioactive effluents and emissions. However, as previously discussed in this environmental assessment, radioactive effluents and emissions from reactor operations constitute only a small fraction of the applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the denial of the request for license renewal would be similar. In addition, denying the request for license renewal would eliminate the benefits of teaching, research, and services provided by the UCINRF.
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different resources or significant quantities of resources beyond those previously considered in the issuance of the original Facility License R-116 to the Regents of the University of California for the UCINRF on November 24, 1969.
The NRC staff provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the California Energy Commission for review on April 7, 2010. By telephone call on May 13, 2010, the California Energy Commission acknowledged receiving this draft Environmental Assessment and had no comments.
The NRC staff also provided information about the proposed activity to the State Office of Historical Preservation for review on April 7, 2010. By letter dated April 27, 2010, the Office of Historical Preservation agreed with the NRC regarding the conclusions of the historical assessment, and otherwise had no comments.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License renewal application; opportunity to provide comments, request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene, order.
Submit comments by March 14, 2012. Requests for a hearing or leave to intervene must be filed by April 13, 2012. Any potential party as defined in Title 10 of the
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0026 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
•
•
•
Geoffrey Wertz, Project Manager, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852; telephone: 301-415-0893; 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering an application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-108 (“Application”), which currently authorizes the Dow Chemical Company (the licensee) to operate the Dow Chemical TRIGA Research Reactor (DTRR) at a maximum steady-state thermal power of 300 kilowatts (kW) thermal. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate the DTRR up to a steady-state thermal power of 300 kW for an additional 20 years from the date of issuance.
On April 1, 2009, as supplemented by letters dated August 11, September 24, 2010, January 12, February 11, April 11, August 12, August 31, October 12, November 10, and December 6, 2011, the NRC received an application from the licensee filed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.51(a) to renew Facility Operating License No. R-108 for the DTRR.
The application contains SUNSI.
Based on its initial review of the application, the NRC staff determined that DTRR submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 50.33 and 10 CFR 50.34 so that the application is acceptable for docketing. The current Docket No. 50-264 for Facility Operating License No. R-108 will be retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not preclude requests for additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application. Prior to a decision to renew the license, the Commission will make findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations.
Detailed guidance which the NRC uses to review applications for the renewal of non-power reactor licenses can be found in NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,” and “Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) on the Streamlined Review Process for License Renewal for Research Reactors.” The detailed review guidance (NUREG-1537 and the ISG) may be accessed online in the NRC Library at
Requirements for hearing requests and petitions for leave to intervene are found in 10 CFR 2.309, “Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Requirements for Standing, and Contentions.”' Interested persons should consult 10 CFR part 2, § 2.309, which is available at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 (or call the PDR at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737. NRC regulations are also accessible electronically from the NRC's Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at
Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition must provide the name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner and specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
A petition for leave to intervene must also include a specification of the contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the hearing. For each contention, the petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, as well as a brief explanation of the basis for the contention. Additionally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the issue raised by each contention is within the scope of the proceeding and is material to the findings the NRC must
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Non-timely petitions for leave to intervene and contentions, amended petitions, and supplemental petitions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or a Presiding Officer that the petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A State, county, municipality, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agencies thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(d)(2). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by April 13, 2012. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in Section IV of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that State, local governmental bodies, and Federally-recognized Indian tribes do not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d)(1) if the facility is located within its boundaries. The entities listed above could also seek to participate in a hearing as a nonparty pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(c).
Any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to this proceeding may request permission to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to such limits and conditions as may be imposed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by April 13, 2012.
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 ten (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 the Electronic Information Exchange System, 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 filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from February 13, 2012. Non-timely filings will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this opportunity to request a hearing and opportunity to petition for leave to intervene, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request such access. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requester shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Associate General Counsel for Hearings, Enforcement and Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mail address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requester's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly-available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C.(3) the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2) above, the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after the requestor is granted access to that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the date the petitioner is granted access to the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing),
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff either after a determination on standing and need for access, or after a determination on trustworthiness and reliability, the NRC staff shall immediately notify the requestor in writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
(2) The requester may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) The presiding officer designated in this proceeding; (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if he or she is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an administrative law judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, with that officer.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requester may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed with the Chief Administrative Judge within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. The availability of interlocutory review by the Commission of orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
It is so ordered.
For the Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on March 6, 2012, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the new Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP) Pilot Program Plan applicable to construction oversight of new plans being constructed under the 10 CFR 50 process. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Mr. Girija Shukla (Telephone 301-415-6855 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA will hold a meeting on March 7, 2012, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The staff will discuss the draft Commission paper and the progress made from the tabletop exercises in response to the SRM on SECY 10-0121, “Modifying the Risk-Informed Regulatory Guidance For New Reactors.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), John Lai (Telephone 301-415-5197 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on March 7, 2012, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Antonio Dias (Telephone 301-415-6805 or Email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for OMB approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of two collections of information under PBGC's regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements (OMB control numbers 1212-0013 and 1212-0041, expiring March 31, 2012). This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
Comments must be submitted by March 14, 2012.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Copies of the collections of information and comments may be obtained without charge by writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; visiting the Disclosure Division; faxing a request to 202-326-4042; or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The reportable events regulation, forms, and instructions are available at
James Bloch, Program Analyst, Legislative and Policy Division, or Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
On November 23, 2009, PBGC published (at 74 FR 61248) a proposed rule to amend the reportable events regulation to accommodate changes to the variable-rate premium rules made pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006). The rule also proposed to eliminate most automatic waivers and filing extensions, create two new reportable events based on provisions in PPA 2006, and make other changes to the reportable events regulation as well as conforming changes. Public comment on the proposed rule was directed primarily at the proposed elimination of the waivers and extensions and was generally negative. In response to the comments and in the spirit of Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, PBGC plans to issue a new proposal that will more effectively target troubled plans and sponsors while reducing burden for those that are financially sound. PBGC is requesting OMB to extend approval of the existing information collections since current approval will expire in March 2012.
Section 4043 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires plan administrators and plan sponsors to report certain plan and employer events to PBGC. The reporting requirements give PBGC notice of events that indicate plan or employer financial problems. PBGC uses the information provided in determining what, if any, action it needs to take. For example, PBGC might need to institute proceedings to terminate a plan (placing it in trusteeship) under section 4042 of ERISA to ensure the continued payment of benefits to plan participants and their beneficiaries or to prevent unreasonable increases in PBGC's losses.
Section 303(k) of ERISA and section 430(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) impose a lien in favor of an underfunded single-employer plan that is covered by the termination insurance
Only PBGC (or, at its direction, the plan's contributing sponsor or a member of the same controlled group) may perfect and enforce this lien. ERISA and the Code require persons committing payment failures to notify PBGC within 10 days of the due date whenever there is a failure to make a required payment and the total of the unpaid balances (including interest) exceeds $1 million.
The provisions of section 4043 of ERISA and of sections 303(k) of ERISA and 430(k) of the Code have been implemented in PBGC's regulation on Reportable Events and Certain Other Notification Requirements (29 CFR part 4043). Subparts B and C of the regulation deal with reportable events, and subpart D deals with failures to make required contributions.
PBGC has issued Forms 10 and 10-Advance and related instructions under subparts B and C (approved under OMB control number 1212-0013) and Form 200 and related instructions under subpart D (approved under OMB control number 1212-0041). OMB approval of both of these collections of information expires March 31, 2012. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval for three years, with minor changes. 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.
PBGC estimates that it will receive 1,030 reportable event notices per year under subparts B and C of the reportable events regulation using Forms 10 and 10-Advance and that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 5,400 hours and $822,000. PBGC estimates that it will receive 110 notices of failure to make required contributions per year under subpart D of the reportable events regulation using Form 200 and that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 670 hours and $102,000.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collections 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,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form SE (17 CFR 239.64) is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits, reports or other documents that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically. The information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or other entities that are required to file documents electronically. Approximately 50 registrants file Form SE and it takes an estimated 0.10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 5 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 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 the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an email to:
Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) intends to issue an order, pursuant to Section 203(h) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”), cancelling the registration of Gravity Capital Partners, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the registrant.
Section 203(h) provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission finds that any person registered under Section 203, or who has pending an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section 203A,
The registrant indicated on its most recent Form ADV filing that it is relying on section 203A(a)(1)(A) of the Act to register with the Commission, which prior to September 19, 2011 prohibited an investment adviser from registering with the Commission unless it maintained assets under management of at least $25 million. Effective September 19, 2011, Congress increased the assets under management threshold under section 203A of the Advisers Act to prohibit an investment adviser from registering with the Commission if it is required to be registered in the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business and has assets under management between $25 million and $100 million. Accordingly, an adviser currently registered with the Commission generally is required to withdraw from registration when its assets under management fall below $90 million, unless the adviser is not required to register in the state where it maintains its principal office and place of business.
The registrant is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section 203A of the Act because the Commission believes, based on the facts it has, that the registrant did not at the time of the Form ADV filing, and does not currently, maintain the required assets under management to remain registered with the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission believes that reasonable grounds exist for a finding that this registrant is no longer eligible to be registered with the Commission as an investment adviser and that the registration should be cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act.
Any interested person may, by March 5, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a hearing on the cancellation, accompanied by a statement as to the nature of his interest, the reason for such request, and the issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and he may request that he be notified if the Commission should order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be addressed: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549.
At any time after March 5, 2012, the Commission may issue an order cancelling the registration, upon the basis of the information stated above, unless an order for a hearing on the cancellation shall be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who requested a hearing, or to be advised as to whether a hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any postponements thereof. Any adviser whose registration is cancelled under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).
For further information contact: Alpa Patel, Attorney-Adviser at 202-551-6787 (Office of Investment Adviser Regulation).
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change will permit OCC to clear and settle Spot Gold Futures, which are proposed to be traded by NASDAQ OMX Futures Exchange, Inc. (“NFX”).
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to permit OCC to clear and settle Spot Gold Futures, which are proposed to be traded by NFX. A Spot Gold Future is a U.S. dollar-settled futures contract based on the value of gold with an additional daily cost of carry/interest payment feature (“Cost of Carry Payment”) reflecting the difference between the overnight lease rate for gold and the overnight interest rate for the U.S. dollar. The Cost of Carry Payment will be in addition to the daily variation payment and is designed to make the economic effect of buying or selling a Spot Gold Future equivalent to the purchase or sale of gold in the spot market. Spot Gold Futures would simulate a spot market transaction that is continually “rolled forward” to the maturity date of the future with the Cost of Carry Payment being similar to the payment exchanged between the buyer and seller in a spot transaction each day the transaction is rolled forward.
The per-contract amount of the Cost of Carry Payment will be expressed in terms of “swap points,” which will be calculated and supplied to NFX by a third-party service provider. A positive swap point results in a credit for the holder of the short position with respect to a Spot Gold Futures contract, and a
NFX plans to use as the final settlement price for each Spot Gold Future the published settlement price of the corresponding gold futures contract on COMEX.
OCC's current By-Laws and Rules do not provide for cash-settled futures with a daily cost of carry/interest payment between the buyer and seller of such contract in addition to the daily variation payment. In order to provide for the clearance of Spot Gold Futures, OCC proposes to add definitions for Spot Futures and the Cost of Carry Payment to its By-Laws and to amend its Rules to describe the manner in which Cost of Carry Payments will be calculated and made.
OCC performs the clearing function for NFX pursuant to the Clearing Agreement between OCC and NFX. The Clearing Agreement provides that NFX will provide settlement prices to OCC and will indemnify OCC in the event that OCC uses an incorrect settlement price provided by NFX. It does not, however, contemplate the transmission of separate settlement items such as swap points. The Clearing Agreement will be amended to address NFX's provision of swap point data to OCC and to provide protection for OCC in the event that NFX provides incorrect swap point data.
Pursuant to the terms of the Clearing Agreement, OCC has agreed to clear the specific types of contracts enumerated in the Clearing Agreement and may agree to clear additional types through the execution by both parties of a new “Schedule C” to the Agreement.
OCC believes that the proposed changes to OCC's By-Laws are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. OCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by OCC.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon 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 14, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the WisdomTree Emerging Markets Inflation Protection Bond Fund (“Fund”) pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Fund will be an actively-managed exchange-traded fund. The Shares will be offered by the WisdomTree Trust (“Trust”), which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on December 15, 2005. The Fund is registered with the Commission as an investment company, and the Fund has filed a registration statement on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”) with the Commission.
The Fund seeks to provide a high level of income and capital appreciation representative of investments in inflation-linked debt of emerging market issuers. The Fund intends to achieve its investment objectives through direct and indirect investments in inflation-protected Fixed Income Securities
The Fund intends to invest in inflation-linked Fixed Income Securities of issuers in the following regions: Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Within these regions, the Fund is likely to invest in countries such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Hungary, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey, although this list may change as market developments occur and may include additional emerging market countries that conform to selected ratings, liquidity, and other criteria. As a general matter, and subject to the Fund's investment guideline to provide
The Fund expects that it will have at least 70% of its assets invested in investment grade securities, and no more than 30% of its assets invested in non-investment grade securities. Because the debt ratings of issuers will change from time to time, the exact percentage of the Fund's investments in investment grade and non-investment grade Fixed Income Securities will change from time to time in response to economic events and changes to the credit ratings of such issuers. Within the non-investment grade category, some issuers and instruments are considered to be of lower credit quality and at higher risk of default. In order to limit its exposure to these more speculative credits, the Fund will not invest more than 10% of its assets in securities rated BB or below by Moody's, or equivalently rated by S&P or Fitch. The Fund does not intend to invest in unrated securities; however, it may do so to a limited extent, such as where a rated security becomes unrated, if such security is determined by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser to be of comparable quality. In determining whether a security is of “comparable quality,” the Adviser and Sub-Adviser will consider, for example, whether the issuer of the security has issued other rated securities.
While the Fund intends to focus its investments in Fixed Income Securities on bonds and other obligations of governments and agencies of emerging market countries, the Fund may invest up to 20% of its net assets in corporate bonds. The Fund will invest only in corporate bonds that the Adviser or Sub-Adviser deems to be sufficiently liquid. Generally, a corporate bond must have $200 million or more par amount outstanding and significant par value traded to be considered as an eligible investment. Economic and other conditions may, from time to time, lead to a decrease in the average par amount outstanding of bond issuances. Therefore, although the Fund does not intend to do so, the Fund may invest up to 5% of its net assets in corporate bonds with less than $200 million par amount outstanding if (i) the Adviser or Sub-Adviser deems such security to be sufficiently liquid based on its analysis of the market for such security (based on, for example, broker-dealer quotations or its analysis of the trading history of the security or the trading history of other securities issued by the issuer), (ii) such investment is deemed by the Adviser or Sub-Adviser to be in the best interest of the Fund, and (iii) such investment is deemed consistent with the Fund's goal of providing broad exposure to inflation-linked Fixed Income Securities.
The Fund may invest in Fixed Income Securities with effective or final maturities of any length. The Fund will seek to keep the average effective duration of its portfolio between 2 and 8 years. Effective duration is an indication of an investment's interest rate risk or how sensitive an investment or a fund is to changes in interest rates. Generally, a fund or instrument with a longer effective duration is more sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, and, therefore, more volatile, than a fund with a shorter effective duration. The Fund's actual portfolio duration may be longer or shorter depending on market conditions.
The Fund intends to invest in Fixed Income Securities of at least 13 non-affiliated issuers and will not concentrate 25% or more of the value of its total assets in any one industry, as that term is used in the 1940 Act. The Fund further intends to qualify each year as a regulated investment company (“RIC”) under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Fund will invest its assets, and otherwise conduct its operations, in a manner that is intended to satisfy the qualifying income, diversification and distribution requirements necessary to establish and maintain RIC qualification under Subchapter M.
In addition to satisfying the above-referenced RIC diversification requirements, no portfolio security held by the Fund (other than U.S. government securities and non-U.S. government securities) will represent more than 30% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and the five highest weighted portfolio securities of the Fund (other than U.S. government securities and/or non-U.S. government securities) will not in the aggregate account for more than 65% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. For these purposes, the Fund may treat repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. government securities or non-U.S. government securities as U.S. or non-U.S. government securities, as applicable.
The Fund intends to invest in Money Market Securities in order to help manage cash flows in and out of the Fund, such as in connection with payment of dividends or expenses, and to satisfy margin requirements, to provide collateral, or to otherwise back investments in derivative instruments. For these purposes, Money Market Securities include: Short-term, high-quality obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or the agencies or instrumentalities of the U.S. government; short-term, high-quality securities issued or guaranteed by non-U.S. governments, agencies and instrumentalities; repurchase agreements backed by short-term U.S. government securities or non-U.S. government securities; money market mutual funds; and deposits and other obligations of U.S. and non-U.S. banks and financial institutions. All Money Market Securities acquired by the Fund will be rated investment grade. The Fund does not intend to invest in any unrated Money Market Securities. However, it may do so to a limited extent, such as where a rated Money Market Security becomes unrated, if such Money Market Security is determined by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser to be of comparable quality.
Consistent with the Exemptive Order, the Fund may use derivative instruments as part of its investment strategies. Examples of derivative instruments include exchange-listed futures contracts, forward currency contracts, non-deliverable forward currency contracts, currency swaps, interest rate swaps, inflation rate swaps, currency options, options on futures contracts, swap agreements, and structured notes. The Fund's use of derivatives contracts (other than structured notes) will be collateralized or otherwise backed by investments in short-term, high quality U.S. Money Market Securities.
The Fund expects that no more than 30% of the value of the Fund's net assets will be invested in derivative instruments. Such investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. For example, the Fund may engage in swap transactions that provide exposure to inflation rates, inflation-linked bonds, inflation-sensitive indices, or interest rates.
With respect to certain kinds of derivative transactions entered into by the Fund that involve obligations to make future payments to third parties, including, but not limited to, futures and forward contracts, swap contracts, the purchase of securities on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, or reverse repurchase agreements, the Fund, in accordance with applicable federal securities laws, rules, and interpretations thereof, will “set aside” liquid assets, or engage in other measures to “cover” open positions with respect to such transactions. The Fund may engage in foreign currency transactions, and may invest directly in foreign currencies in the form of bank and financial institution deposits, certificates of deposit, and bankers acceptances denominated in a specified non-U.S. currency. The Fund may enter into forward currency contracts in order to “lock in” the exchange rate between the currency it will deliver and the currency it will receive for the duration of the contract.
The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies (including money market funds and exchange-traded funds). The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in (a) illiquid securities and (b) Rule 144A securities.
Additional details regarding the Trust, Shares, trading policies of the Fund, creations and redemptions of the Shares, Fixed Income Securities, Money Market Securities, investment risks, net asset value (“NAV”) calculation, the dissemination and availability of information about the underlying assets, trading halts, applicable trading rules, surveillance, and the Information Bulletin, among other things, can be found in the Notice and/or the Registration Statements, as applicable.
After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change to list and trade the Shares of the Fund is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Commission notes that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time.
The Exchange represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including:
(1) The Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) The Exchange's surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which include Managed Fund Shares, are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (c) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated PIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (d) how information regarding the PIV is disseminated; (e) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding as of the start of trading on the Exchange.
(6) The Fund: (a) May hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in (i) illiquid securities and (ii) Rule 144A securities; (b) will not invest in any non-U.S. equity securities; and (c) expects that no more than 30% of the value of its net assets will be invested in derivative instruments, which will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
(7) For initial and/or continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
This approval order is based on the Exchange's representations.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 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 (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 clarify that the AIM Contra Execution Fee (the “Fee”) does not apply to Clearing Trading Permit Holder (“CTPH”) Proprietary facilitation orders.
On January 17, 2012, the Exchange made a number of amendments to its Fees Schedule, including to add to footnote 11 a waiver of the transaction fees for CTPH Proprietary facilitation orders (other than SPX, VIX or other volatility indexes, OEX or XEO) executed in Automate [sic] Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) or open outcry, or as a QCC or FLEX Options transaction (the “CTPH Proprietary Facilitation Waiver”).
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an 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 October 19, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE Amex LLC (“NYSE Amex” and together with NYSE, the “Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.
Each Exchange is proposing to establish a Retail Liquidity Program on a pilot basis, limited to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. According to the Exchanges, the Retail Liquidity Program is intended to attract retail order flow to the NYSE for NYSE-listed securities, and to NYSE Amex for NYSE Amex-listed securities as well as securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market and traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The proposed Retail Liquidity Program would allow such order flow to receive potential price improvement.
Under the proposed Program, a new class of market participants called Retail Member Organizations could submit a new type of order, called a Retail Order, to the Exchange. Once a Retail Member Organization submitted a Retail Order, a new class of market participants called Retail Liquidity Providers would then be required to provide potential price improvement, in the form of non-displayed interest that is better than the best protected bid or offer (“PBBO”),
As set forth in the proposals, a Retail Order would be an immediate or cancel order, and could have two different sources of origination. A Retail Order could be an agency order that originated from a natural person and not a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. The Retail Member Organization may not alter the terms of such order with respect to price or side
The Retail Liquidity Provider would be required to submit Retail Price Improvement Orders for securities that are assigned to the Retail Liquidity Provider. The Retail Price Improvement Order would be priced better than the PBBO by at least $0.001. The Exchange systems would determine whether a Retail Price Improvement Order could interact with incoming Retail Orders.
When a Retail Price Improvement Order is available, the Exchange would disseminate an identifier, called a Retail Liquidity Identifier. The identifier would initially be disseminated through an Exchange proprietary data feed, and as soon as practicable, the Exchange would disseminate the identifier through the Consolidated Quotation System.
In order to become a Retail Member Organization, an Exchange member organization must conduct a retail business or handle retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. The member organization must submit an application with supporting documentation and an attestation to the Exchange that the order flow would qualify as Retail Orders.
The Exchange would review the application and notify the member organization of the Exchange's decision in writing. If a member organization did not receive approval to become a Retail Member Organization, then the member organization could appeal as provided below or reapply 90 days after the Exchange issued the disapproval.
The Exchange would require a Retail Member Organization to have written policies and procedures in place to assure that only bona fide retail orders are designated as such. The written policies and procedures would require that the Retail Member Organization exercise due diligence to assure that entry of a Retail Order is in compliance with the proposed rule, prior to such entry. In addition, the Retail Member Organization must monitor whether the Retail Order meets the requirements of the proposed rule.
If the Retail Member Organization represented the Retail Order from another broker-dealer, then the Retail Member Organization must have adequate supervisory procedures to assure that the Retail Order meets the proposed definition. Every year, the Retail Member Organization must obtain from each broker-dealer a written representation that the Retail Orders the broker-dealer sends comply with the proposed rule and must monitor the broker-dealer's order flow to meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
Under the proposal, a Retail Member submitting a Retail Order could choose one of three ways for the Retail Order to interact with available contra-side interest. First, a Retail Order could interact only with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders. The Exchange would label this a Type 1 Retail Order and such orders would not interact with other available contra-side interest in Exchange systems or route to other markets. Portions not executed would be cancelled.
Second, a Retail Order could interact first with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and any remaining portion would be executed as a Regulation NMS-compliant Immediate or Cancel Order (such order would sweep the Exchange's book without being routed to other markets, and any remaining portion would be cancelled). The Exchange would label this a Type 2 Retail Order.
Finally, a Retail Order could interact first with available contra-side Retail Price Improvement Orders and any remaining portion would be executed as a NYSE Immediate or Cancel Order (such order would sweep the Exchange's book and be routed to other markets to comply with Regulation NMS and any remaining portion would be cancelled). The Exchange would label this a Type 3 Retail Order.
The proposals set forth how Retail Price Improvement Orders are ranked in the same security. The Exchange would follow a price and time allocation, ranking Retail Price Improvement Orders according to price and then time of entry. Executions would occur at the price that completes the incoming order. If there are remaining Retail Price Improvement Orders, they would be available for further incoming Retail Orders. As noted earlier, Retail Orders not executed would be cancelled.
The proposed rule would set forth the qualifications, application process, requirements, and penalties of Retail Liquidity Providers.
To qualify, a member organization must be approved as a Designated Market Maker
A member organization must submit an application with supporting documentation to the Exchange. Thereafter, the Exchange would notify whether the member organization is approved as a Retail Liquidity Provider. More than one member organization could act as a Retail Liquidity Provider for a security, and a member organization could act as a Retail Liquidity Provider for more than one security. A member organization could request the Exchange to be assigned certain securities. Once approved, the member organization must establish connectivity with relevant Exchange systems prior to trading.
The Exchange would notify a member organization in writing if the Exchange does not approve the member organization's application to be a Retail Liquidity Provider. Such member organization could request an appeal as provided below. The member organization could also reapply 90 days after the Exchange issues the disapproval notice.
Once approved as a Retail Liquidity Provider, a member organization could withdraw by providing notice to the Exchange. The withdrawal would become effective when the Exchange reassigns the securities to another Retail Liquidity Provider, no later than 30 days after the Exchange receives the withdrawal notice. In the event that the Exchange takes longer than 30 days to reassign the securities, the withdrawing Retail Liquidity Provider would have no further obligations under the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would impose several requirements on Retail Liquidity Providers. First, a Retail Liquidity
To calculate the 5% quoting requirement, the Exchange would determine the average percentage of time a Retail Liquidity Provider maintains a Retail Price Improvement Order in each assigned security during the regular trading day on a daily and monthly basis. The Exchange would use the following definitions. The “Daily Bid Percentage” would be calculated by determining the percentage of time a Retail Liquidity Provider maintains a Retail Price Improvement Order with respect to the best protected bid during each trading day for a calendar month. The “Daily Offer Percentage” would be calculated by determining the percentage of time a Retail Liquidity Provider maintains a Retail Price Improvement Order with respect to the best protected offer during each trading day for a calendar month. The “Monthly Average Bid Percentage” would be calculated for each security by summing the security's “Daily Bid Percentages” for each trading day in a calendar month, then dividing the resulting sum by the total number of trading days in such month. The “Monthly Average Offer Percentage” would be calculated for each security by summing the security's “Daily Offer Percentages” for each trading day in a calendar month, then dividing the resulting sum by the total number of trading days in such month.
The proposed rule specifies that only Retail Price Improvement Orders entered through the trading day would be used when calculating the 5% quoting requirements. Further, a Retail Liquidity Provider would have a two-month grace period from the 5% quoting requirement. The Exchange would impose the 5% quoting requirements on the first day of the third consecutive calendar month after the member organization began operation as a Retail Liquidity Provider.
The proposed rules provide for penalties when a Retail Liquidity Provider or a Retail Member Organization fails to meet the requirements of the rule.
If a Retail Liquidity Provider fails to meet the 5% quoting requirements in any assigned securities for three consecutive months, the Exchange, in its sole discretion, may: (1) Revoke the assignment of all affected securities; (2) revoke the assignment of unaffected securities; or (3) disqualify the member organization to serve as a Retail Liquidity Provider. If the Exchange moves to disqualify a Retail Liquidity Provider's status, then the Exchange would notify, in writing, the Retail Liquidity Provider one calendar month prior to the determination. Likewise, the Exchange would notify the Retail Liquidity Provider in writing if the Exchange determined to disqualify the status of that Retail Liquidity Provider. As noted earlier, a Retail Liquidity Provider that is disqualified may appeal as provided below or reapply.
With respect to Retail Member Organizations, the Exchange could disqualify a Retail Member Organization if the Retail Order submitted by the Retail Member Organization did not comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. The Exchange would have sole discretion to make such determination. The Exchange would provide written notice to the Retail Member Organization when disqualification determinations are made. Similar to a disqualified Retail Liquidity Provider, a disqualified Retail Member Organization could appeal as provided below or reapply.
Under the proposals, the Exchange would establish a Retail Liquidity Program Panel to review disapproval or disqualification decisions. An affected member organization would have five business days after notice to request an adverse review. If a member organization is disqualified as a Retail Liquidity Provider and has appealed, the Exchange would stay the reassignment of securities.
The Panel would consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer or its designee, and two officers of the Exchange as designated by the co-head of U.S. Listings and Cash Execution. The Panel would review the appeal and issue a decision within the time frame prescribed by the Exchange. The Panel's decision would constitute final action by the Exchange, and the Panel could modify or overturn any Exchange action taken under the proposed rule.
As noted above, the Commission received 28 comment letters concerning the NYSE proposal and 4 comment letters concerning the NYSE Amex proposal. Several commenters expressed support for some or all elements of the Exchanges' proposed Program.
However, a number of commenters raised concerns about the proposed rule changes. The main areas of concern were: (1) The time and manner of the Commission's action on the proposed rule changes, given the potential impact on overall market structure; (2) the proposals' impact on the Sub-Penny Rule; (3) whether the proposals impede fair access; and (4) whether the proposals implicate rules and standards relating to best execution and order protection.
Several commenters requested that the Commission delay taking action on the proposals until the Commission has had additional time to examine the proposals' potential impact on market structure.
The Exchanges responded that the proposed Program is designed to attract retail order flow to the Exchanges by competing with the current practices of broker-dealers who internalize much of the market's retail order flow. Additionally, the Exchanges represent that the fees and credits they would implement as part of the Program would replicate the current structure between over-the-counter internalization venues and retail order flow providers.
A number of commenters raised concerns about the proposed Program's use of sub-penny price improvement for retail order flow, and its implications with respect to the Sub-Penny Rule (Rule 612) of Regulation NMS.
Other commenters articulated similar concerns about the protection of public limit orders and public price discovery,
In response, the Exchanges stated that currently, over-the-counter market makers internalize retail order flow at negotiated prices and not at their publicly displayed quotes. The Exchanges believe that this aspect of the market warrants further Commission consideration, but argued that it does not provide independent basis to disapprove the proposals.
The Exchanges also stated that the bulk of commenters' concerns about non-displayed liquidity stepping ahead of displayed limit orders for insignificant amounts are misguided. According to the Exchanges, the Commission's stated guidance with respect to the Sub-Penny Rule concerns market professionals using displayed orders to gain execution priority over customer limit orders. The Exchanges distinguished the proposed Program from such concerns by noting that the Retail Liquidity Identifier would not be priced and Retail Price Improvement Orders would not be displayed. Accordingly, the Exchanges contend that the Program would limit its sub-penny activity to sub-penny executions, and they cite to a statement in the Regulation NMS adopting release articulating the Commission's belief that sub-penny executions do not raise the same concerns as displayed sub-penny quotes. Similarly, in response to comments about the consequences of moving the “tick size” to $0.001, the Exchanges stated that the “tick size” would not in fact be altered because the sub-penny components of the Program would not be displayed.
Finally, in response to the concern that the proposals might lead to more sub-penny trading, the Exchanges stated that they do not anticipate such a result. Instead, the Exchanges stated their belief that the proposals would likely reallocate existing retail order market share, which the Exchanges stated that is already subject to “regular” sub-penny executions due to current internalization agreements. Moreover, the Exchanges further stated that if the proposals led to additional sub-penny executions for retail order flow, then it would benefit the market as retail investors would be receiving greater price improvement than they are today.
Commenters also highlighted several elements of the Program that potentially implicate the Commission's rules governing fair access. First, several commenters raised questions about whether the proposals would, in essence, create a private market. Some commenters wrote that the proposed segmentation of retail order flow would amount to unfair discrimination,
The Exchanges responded that the proposals do not create a fair access issue because the Retail Liquidity Identifier does not satisfy the definition of “quotation” under Regulation NMS. The Exchanges stated their belief that the Retail Liquidity Identifier is not a protected “quotation” because a “quotation” is, by definition, a “bid or an offer,”
Another fair access-related issue raised by the commenters relates to the clarity and transparency of certain defined terms in the proposals. Specifically, some commenters expressed concern that under the proposals, the Exchanges would have too much discretion to certify or approve Retail Member Organizations and Retail Liquidity Providers, creating the potential for discriminatory treatment.
The Exchanges responded that they would continually monitor and evaluate all aspects of the Retail Member Organization certification process during the pilot period. The Exchanges disagreed that the definition of “Retail Order” and the Retail Member Organization certification process are unclear or not subject to enforcement. According to the Exchanges, the authentication and certification procedures, together with the requirement that Retail Member Organizations have written policies and procedures to assure that they only submit qualifying retail orders, would result in reliable identification and segmentation of retail order flow. The Exchanges further stated that the proposals would be subject to regulatory review by FINRA pursuant to a regulatory services agreement with the Exchanges.
The commenters also raised issues related to access fees. One commenter suggested that the appropriate amount of access fees would need to be revisited if the “tick size” is reduced from $.01 to $.001 because with a tenth of a penny spread, the maximum allowable fee of $.003 per share would have the effect of increasing the economic spread by 600%.
The Exchanges responded that approval of the proposals does not require reexamination of any access fee issue. The Exchanges noted that there would be no visible prices disseminated as part of the program and stated their belief that the proposals would not use any “quotes” subject to the Commission's fair access rules. The Exchanges also expressed their belief that a broker's obligations under Regulation NMS would not require it to route a retail order to the Exchanges to interact with a Retail Price Improvement Order. The Exchanges stated further that the proposals comport with the principles behind the Commission's access rules because the Exchanges intend to welcome broad participation in the Program.
Several commenters took the position that the Program would complicate broker-dealers' best execution duties. According to one commenter, the Exchanges' dissemination of the Retail Liquidity Identifier would raise a number of issues, including whether broker-dealers would be required to route to the Exchanges when they see a Retail Liquidity Identifier; whether, if other exchanges were to adopt similar proposals and disseminate flags similar to the Retail Liquidity Identifier, a broker-dealer would be required to sweep all liquidity inside the spread before executing at the NBBO; whether the Exchanges would be required to route Retail Orders they receive to other market centers if those away markets offered the possibility of further price improvement; and whether broker-dealers would be required to subscribe to the Exchanges' proprietary feed to be able to receive the Retail Liquidity Identifier.
Another commenter questioned whether, if other exchanges were to adopt competing programs and disseminate liquidity interest flags over their proprietary feeds, a broker-dealer would be required to subscribe to each proprietary feed in order to fill its best execution obligations.
The Exchanges responded that they believe the proposals do not raise any best execution challenges that are not already confronted by broker-dealers in the current market environment. The Exchanges stated that best execution is a facts and circumstances determination and requires many factors to be considered.
One commenter also raised related concerns about the proposals' potential impact on broker-dealer obligations under FINRA Rule 5320, also known as the “Manning” rule.
In response to this comment, the Exchanges stated their position that the Manning obligations of a Retail Liquidity Provider would be no different from the obligations on an
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B),
According to the Exchanges, the proposals are designed to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchanges and provide the potential for price improvement to retail orders. However, the proposals also raise novel market structure issues that warrant further comment and Commission consideration.
For example, as noted above, the proposals are inconsistent with the Sub-Penny Rule because they contemplate the Exchanges accepting and ranking orders in securities priced at $1.00 or more per share in sub-penny increments, and the Exchanges separately have requested an exemption from that Rule. In addition, the proposals would create a new exchange order type—the Retail Price Improvement Order—that is available only to a subset of market participants, namely Retail Member Organizations. While the Exchanges state that the proposals are designed to attract retail orders to the Exchanges and provide the potential for price improvement to retail orders, the Exchanges define the “Retail Order” that is permitted to interact with Retail Price Improvement Orders as including not only orders that originate from a natural person, but also broker-dealer proprietary orders that liquidate positions acquired from internalizing orders that originate from natural persons. Thus, under the proposals, the connection between the “Retail Order” that is entitled to execute with sub-penny price improvement against Retail Price Improvement Orders and the original retail investor order may be attenuated, and under these circumstances it is unclear whether the benefit of the sub-penny price improvement ultimately would reach the retail investor. Accordingly, given the breadth of the proposed definition of a “Retail Order,” the Commission believes questions are raised as to the scope of the requested exemption under the Sub-Penny Rule, and whether the Exchanges have fairly and reasonably determined the subset of market participants that would be allowed to access Retail Price Improvement Orders.
In addition, the proposals do not describe with precision the attributes of the Retail Liquidity Identifier that would be disseminated when a Retail Price Improvement Order exists. Depending on those details, the Retail Liquidity Identifier could fall within the definition of “bid or offer” in Rule 600(b)(8) of Regulation NMS, which would implicate Rule 602 of Regulation NMS,
The Commission believes that these concerns raise questions as to whether the Exchanges' proposals are consistent with the requirements of the Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether they would promote just and equitable principles of trade, perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, protect investors and the public interest, and not permit unfair discrimination. The Commission also believes questions are raised as to whether, given the breadth of the definition of “Retail Order” in the Exchanges' proposals, an exemption for the Program from the Sub-Penny Rule would be in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposals. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be
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.
February 7, 2012.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.4 to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust
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 purpose of this filing is to amend Commentary .05 of Rule 6.4 to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust (“SLV” or “SLV Trust”) and United States Oil Fund (“USO” or “USO Fund”) at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
Two popular exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), which are known on the Exchange as Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, underlie SLV and USO options.
The iShares® Silver Trust is a grantor trust that is designed to provide a vehicle for investors to own interests in silver. The purpose of the SLV Trust is to own silver transferred to the trust in exchange for shares that are issued by the trust. Each of such shares represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of the SLV Trust. The objective of the SLV Trust is for the value of the iShares® to reflect, at any given time, the price of silver owned by the trust at that time.
The United States Oil Fund is a domestic exchange traded security designed to track the movements of light, sweet crude oil that is known as West Texas Intermediate. The investment objective of the USO Fund is for the changes in percentage terms of
The ETFs underlying SLV and USO options, which are listed on NYSE Arca, are not affected or changed by this filing.
Commentary .05 of Rule 6.4 currently states that the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is more than $200. This is similar to the applicable ETF option interval standards of other options markets.
The Commission has recently approved a CBOE proposal to allow $0.50 strike price intervals for options on certain ETFs and individual equity securities on which CBOE would calculate volatility (known as “volatility options”).
Other than options in $0.50 strike price intervals approved for CBOE as noted, options on ETFs or Exchange Trades Fund Shares trade at $1 intervals where the strike price is below $200. As demonstrated in this filing, however, this $1 strike price interval is no longer always appropriate, and in fact may be counter-productive and more costly, for ETF option traders and investors that are trying to achieve optimum trading, hedging, and investing objectives.
The Exchange believes that reducing these strike price intervals would make excellent economic sense, would allow better tailored investing and hedging opportunities, and would potentially enable traders and investors to save money.
The number of low-priced strike interval options have increased significantly over the last decade, such that now there are approximately 935 equity options and 225 ETF options listed at $1 strike price intervals.
There are also, in addition to the newly enabled CBOE $0.50 strike price options, approximately 7 options listed at $0.50 strike price intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program.
By way of example, if an investor wants to gain exposure to the silver market or hedge his position, he may invest in options on the iShares® Silver Trust (SLV). Today an investor must choose a strike price that might lack the precision he is looking for in order to gain or reduce exposure to the silver market. Thus, an investor executing a covered call strategy may be looking to sell calls on SLV. Assume the investor's SLV cost basis is $38.35. The nearest out-of-the-money strike call is the 39.00 strike, which is 1.69% out of the money. If the 38.50 strike were available, however, the investor could sell calls in a strike price only .39% out-of-the-money, thus offering 1.29% additional risk protection. To an investor writing covered calls on an equity position, this extra protection could be significant on an annual basis.
With United States Oil Fund (USO), a similar lack of precision exists at the current strike prices. For an investor looking to purchase out-of-the-money put protection against a USO purchase of $31.65, the investor must choose the 31.00 strike, which is 2.05% out-of-the-money. If the 31.50 strike were available, the investor could avail himself of a superior strike price that is only .47% out of the money, thus offering 1.58% additional protection. The smaller strike price offers an increased amount of downside protection to the investor at a more precisely factored cost for the hedging opportunity.
Moreover, an investor may want to execute an investment or hedging strategy whereby the investor would close one position and open another through use of a complex order. Implementing $0.50 strike intervals would, again, offer more precision and an opportunity to improve returns and/or risk protection. Thus, using the previous SLV example, the investor who purchased SLV at $38.35 and sold the $38.50 call might later wish to purchase a call to close the original position and roll into a new position as the stock moves away from the original strike price. By offering $0.50 strike prices, the investor may be able to again avail himself of a better return or hedging opportunity.
The Exchange also believes that with the increase in inter-market trading and hedging,
By establishing $0.50 strike intervals for SLV and USO options, investors would have greater flexibility for trading and hedging the underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not 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
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of another exchange that has been approved by the Commission that permit such exchange to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust and United States Oil Fund at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
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
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05 to NYSE Amex Options Rule 903 to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust
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 purpose of this filing is to amend Commentary .05 of Rule 903 to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust (“SLV” or “SLV Trust”) and United States Oil Fund (“USO” or “USO Fund”) at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
Two popular exchange traded funds (“ETFs”), which are known on the Exchange as Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, underlie SLV and USO options.
The iShares® Silver Trust is a grantor trust that is designed to provide a vehicle for investors to own interests in silver. The purpose of the SLV Trust is to own silver transferred to the trust in exchange for shares that are issued by the trust. Each of such shares represents a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the net assets of the SLV Trust. The objective of the SLV Trust is for the value of the iShares® to reflect, at any given time, the price of silver owned by the trust at that time.
The United States Oil Fund is a domestic exchange traded security designed to track the movements of light, sweet crude oil that is known as West Texas Intermediate. The investment objective of the USO Fund is for the changes in percentage terms of its units' net asset value to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the “NYMEX”), less USO's expenses.
The ETFs underlying SLV and USO options, which are listed on NYSE Arca, are not affected or changed by this filing.
Commentary .05 of Rule 903 currently states that the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is more than $200. This is similar to the applicable ETF option interval standards of other options markets.
The Commission has recently approved a CBOE proposal to allow $0.50 strike price intervals for options on certain ETFs and individual equity securities on which CBOE would calculate volatility (known as “volatility options”).
Other than options in $0.50 strike price intervals approved for CBOE as noted, options on ETFs or Exchange Trades Fund Shares trade at $1 intervals where the strike price is below $200. As demonstrated in this filing, however, this $1 strike price interval is no longer always appropriate, and in fact may be counterproductive and more costly for ETF option traders and investors that are trying to achieve optimum trading, hedging, and investing objectives.
The Exchange believes that reducing these strike price intervals would make excellent economic sense, would allow better tailored investing and hedging opportunities, and would potentially
The number of low-priced strike interval options have increased significantly over the last decade, such that now there are approximately 935 equity options and 225 ETF options listed at $1 strike price intervals.
There are also, in addition to the newly enabled CBOE $0.50 strike price options, approximately 5 options listed at $0.50 strike price intervals pursuant to the $0.50 Strike Program.
By way of example, if an investor wants to gain exposure to the silver market or hedge his position, he may invest in options on the iShares® Silver Trust (SLV). Today an investor must choose a strike price that might lack the precision he is looking for in order to gain or reduce exposure to the silver market. Thus, an investor executing a covered call strategy may be looking to sell calls on SLV. Assume the investor's SLV cost basis is $38.35. The nearest out-of-the-money strike call is the 39.00 strike, which is 1.69% out of the money. If the 38.50 strike were available, however, the investor could sell calls in a strike price only .39% out-of-the-money, thus offering 1.29% additional risk protection. To an investor writing covered calls on an equity position, this extra protection could be significant on an annual basis.
With United States Oil Fund (USO), a similar lack of precision exists at the current strike prices. For an investor looking to purchase out-of-the-money put protection against a USO purchase of $31.65, the investor must choose the 31.00 strike, which is 2.05% out-of-the-money. If the 31.50 strike were available, the investor could avail himself of a superior strike price that is only .47% out of the money, thus offering 1.58% additional protection. The smaller strike price offers an increased amount of downside protection to the investor at a more precisely factored cost for the hedging opportunity.
Moreover, an investor may want to execute an investment or hedging strategy whereby the investor would close one position and open another through use of a complex order. Implementing $0.50 strike intervals would, again, offer more precision and an opportunity to improve returns and/or risk protection. Thus, using the previous SLV example, the investor who purchased SLV at $38.35 and sold the $38.50 call might later wish to purchase a call to close the original position and roll into a new position as the stock moves away from the original strike price. By offering $0.50 strike prices, the investor may be able to again avail himself of a better return or hedging opportunity.
The Exchange also believes that with the increase in inter-market trading and hedging,
By establishing $0.50 strike intervals for SLV and USO options, investors would have greater flexibility for trading and hedging the underlying ETFs or hedging market exposure
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does not 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
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of another exchange that has been approved by the Commission that permit such exchange to allow trading of options on iShares® Silver Trust and United States Oil Fund at $0.50 strike price intervals where the strike price is less than $75.
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.