Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Indian Gaming Commission
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is removing the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. The definitions are outdated because they are no longer used for aircraft certification or operational authorization. Removing the definitions will aid in international harmonization efforts, future landing minima reductions, and airspace system capacity improvements due to the implementation of performance based operations.
Effective April 16, 2012.
Submit comments on or before March 19, 2012. If adverse comment is received, the FAA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0019 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Bryant Welch, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Operations Branch, AFS-410, Federal Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 4102, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 385-4539; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Nancy Sanchez, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 40103, which vests the Administrator with broad authority to prescribe regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.
The FAA is adopting this direct final rule without prior notice and prior public comment because this rule is not controversial, is not expected to result in the receipt of an adverse comment, and a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is not necessary. The Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations definitions are outdated, unnecessary, and overly restrictive. The FAA does not believe we will receive an adverse comment because this rule will not affect any existing operator's aircraft certification or operational approval. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134) provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will publish a document in the
See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this direct final rule and how the FAA will handle comments received. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of rulemaking documents.
The FAA is removing the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. Category III aircraft operations are precision approach and landing operations using an Instrument Landing System (ILS) conducted in very low visibility conditions. Currently, any approach and landing with a runway visual range (RVR) below 1000 feet is considered a Category III operation.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established the general concepts and definition of Category III operations in 1966 in ICAO Annex 10,
In December 1971, the FAA revised the CAT IIIa criteria (AC 120-28A) by establishing initial operational approval criteria. These criteria were based on a conservative approach for reducing operating minima. However, as industry gained operational experience, the FAA determined that the AC 120-28A criteria were unnecessarily stringent. In December 1976, the U.S. certificated the first airplane for Fail Passive CAT IIIa operations. This and following certifications were based on the use of Fail Operational or Fail Passive flight control systems, but some Aircraft Flight Manuals specified that the aircraft were suitable for Category IIIa operations.
As operational experience and the capabilities of airborne equipment increased in CAT IIIa operations, the FAA and industry realized the need for CAT IIIb (RVR lower than 700 feet but no lower than 150 feet) criteria. The FAA issued the initial U.S. CAT IIIb criteria for RVR 600 operations in March 1984 (AC 120-28C). Aircraft certifications and operational approvals continued to be based on the capabilities of the aircraft's Fail Operational or Fail Passive flight control systems, but also continued to tie the certifications and approvals to the Category IIIa and IIIb definitions. CAT IIIc operations are conducted with RVR below 150 feet. The FAA has not developed the criteria for aircraft certification and operational approval for Category IIIc operations. Therefore, Category IIIc operations have not been authorized.
The FAA codified the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations in 1996. ICAO adopted the same definitions in ICAO Annex 6,
While AC 120-28D, issued in October 1999, references the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations, the aircraft certification and operational approval documentation no longer uses these definitions. Under AC 120-28D, aircraft certifications are based solely on the demonstrated capabilities of the aircraft to land and rollout on the runway. For example, an aircraft with Fail Operational systems may be demonstrated to automatically land and rollout at RVR 150 feet, and this capability is stated in the Aircraft Flight Manual. The operational approvals will be based on that Manual without reference to the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions.
An effort is underway to rationalize and standardize Category III approach minima internationally. Aircraft certification standards are essentially the same worldwide with regard to the use of Fail Operational or Fail Passive system criteria to describe landing capabilities. Operational approval criteria are also based on the aircraft system capabilities, as in the United States. However, the publication of Category III landing minima for use on the approach are still tied to the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions, both internationally and in the United States. The FAA is removing the CAT IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions as a first step toward the universal description of Category III operations and certification in terms currently used. The FAA presented a Working Paper to the ICAO Operations Council in October, 2011 requesting the deletion of the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions from the ICAO Annexes. The FAA also presented a similar paper to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)/FAA All Weather Operations Harmonization Working Group in October, 2011.
Category III approach charts depicting landing minima in terms of the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions are now unnecessary. The Category III landing minima at a particular runway are based on the demonstrated qualities and capabilities of the ILS installed on that runway. The FAA tests every installed ILS in accordance with ICAO criteria,
Once this rule is effective, the FAA will amend FAA Orders defining publication of Category III minima by removing references to Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. The amended Orders will directly relate the ILS system classification to the allowable published minima. The approach charts will show only the lowest possible Category III landing minima on a runway. For example, the approach chart for a landing at an airport would only state that the RVR is 600 and will not make any reference to the CAT IIIb operations definition. Operators will use the published minima in conjunction with their Operations Specifications to determine the lowest landing minima allowed to them, as is currently done.
Future Category III operations may derive from new low visibility approach and landing technologies. The type of operations, landing minima and aircraft certification criteria for these future systems will not follow the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions. Thus, removing the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions will eliminate the need for future systems to comply with these outdated definitions.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
The FAA is removing the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. Since this final rule removes outdated and unnecessary definitions, the expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if any agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, section 605(b) of RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
As noted above, the changes to § 1.1 are cost relieving because the FAA is removing the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. The definitions are outdated and no longer used for aircraft certification or operational authorization. Therefore, as the FAA Acting Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it is neither considered an unnecessary obstacle nor a promotion to international trade and therefore it will have no impact on international trade.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this direct final rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified the following difference. Once this rule is effective, the FAA's regulations will no longer include the definitions of Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations. This differs from ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices because ICAO's Annex 6 and Annex 10 include the Category IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc definitions. Until such time ICAO removes these definitions from its annexes, the FAA will be required to file a Difference with ICAO.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rulemaking action, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this rulemaking action in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Air transportation.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain airplanes originally manufactured by Lockheed for the military as P2V airplanes. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires cleaning of the forward lower spar cap between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left), and doing a detailed inspection for cracks, working fasteners, and other anomalies, including surface damage in the form of a nick, gouge, or corrosion; and repairing if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report of a significant crack in the principle wing structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and
This AD is effective March 2, 2012 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2012-03-51, issued on February 6, 2012, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
We must receive comments on this AD by April 2, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1086; fax: 303-342-1088; e-mail:
On February 6, 2012, we issued Emergency AD 2012-03-51, which requires cleaning of the forward lower spar cap between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left), and doing a detailed inspection for cracks, working fasteners, and other anomalies, including surface damage in the form of a nick, gouge, or corrosion; and repairing if necessary. That AD also requires sending inspection results (both positive and negative) to the FAA. This AD was prompted by a report of a significant crack in the principle wing structure on a Neptune Aviation Service, Inc. Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplane. A crack approximately 24 inches long was found in the left side wing front spar and lower skin just outboard of the fuselage side of wing station 40. The crack propagated through the wing front spar web, lower chord, and wing lower skin through stringer No. 22 and aft to stringer No. 21. The cause of the cracking is unknown at this time. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in significant loss of structural integrity of the wing.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires cleaning of the forward lower spar cap between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left), and doing a detailed inspection for cracks, working fasteners, and other anomalies, including surface damage in the form of a nick, gouge, or corrosion; and repairing if necessary. This AD also requires sending inspection results (both positive and negative) to the FAA.
We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of a report of a significant crack in the principle wing structure on a Neptune Aviation Service, Inc. Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplane. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in significant loss of structural integrity of the wing. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written 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
We estimate that this AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
No definitive data are available for repair costs at this time.
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.
(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 2, 2012 to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2012-03-51, issued on February 6, 2012, which contained the requirements of this amendment.
None.
This AD applies to all of the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category:
(1) Aero Union Corporation Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplanes;
(2) Central Air Service, Inc. Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplanes;
(3) Evergreen Air Center Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplanes;
(4) Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc. Model HP-P2V-7 airplanes;
(5) Minden Air Corp Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplanes;
(6) Neptune Aviation Service, Inc. Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplanes; and
(7) USDA Forest Service (type certificate previously held by U.S. Department of Agriculture) Model P2V-5F (SP-2E) airplanes.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report of a significant crack in the principle wing structure on a Neptune Aviation Service, Inc. Model SP-2H (P2V-7) airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks, working fasteners, and other anomalies in the principle wing structure, which could cause significant loss of structural integrity of the wing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified.
Within one day after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
(1) Gain access to the wing spar box between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left sides of the airplane) through an access panel that allows for inspecting the forward lower spar cap assembly and remove or reposition any internal fuel bladder assembly that impedes access.
(2) Clean the exposed surface of the forward lower spar cap between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left), and do a detailed inspection for cracks, working fasteners, and other anomalies, including surface damage in the form of a nick, gouge, or corrosion, of the forward lower spar cap between wing stations 40 and 84.5 (right and left).
(3) If any crack, working fastener, or other anomaly is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Denver Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Denver ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.
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 mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.
Within 10 days after doing the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD to the Denver ACO, FAA, Attention: Roger Caldwell, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1086; fax: 303-342-1088; e-mail:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed unless approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Denver 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,
(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 further information about this AD, contact: Roger Caldwell, Aerospace Engineer, Denver Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone: 303-342-1086; fax: 303-342-1088; e-mail:
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 16, 2012. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 16, 2012.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125), Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective February 16, 2012. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 16, 2012.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125), telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Final rule.
On August 30, 2011, HUD published a proposed rule to suspend FHA's mortgage insurance program for military impacted areas under section 238(c) of the National Housing Act. This single-family mortgage insurance program, established by regulation in 1977, has been significantly underutilized for the past several years. Additionally, these mortgage loans are insured under comparable terms and conditions as loans insured under HUD's primary single-family mortgage insurance program under section 203(b) of the National Housing Act. Accordingly, those borrowers who would be served under section 238(c) of the National Housing Act are served equally well under the section 203(b) mortgage insurance program. The suspension of this mortgage insurance program is consistent with the President's budget requests for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2011 and 2012. In this final rule, HUD is adopting the proposed rule without change.
Karin Hill, Director, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9278, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone number 202-708-4308 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
On August 30, 2011, HUD published a proposed rule in the
HUD's current regulation implementing section 238(c) is codified at 24 CFR 203.43e. The regulation, promulgated in 1977, closely tracks the language of section 238(c) of the Act. Although established to ensure the availability of affordable housing in military impacted areas, the program has been minimally utilized by eligible borrowers. Section 238(c) mortgage insurance has been available in only six counties throughout the country, three in Georgia and three in New York. From January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2010, FHA insured 4,542 single-family home loans in these six counties, and only 2,309 were endorsed under section 238(c) of the Act. The 2,309 loans endorsed since 2005 represent only .05 percent of all FHA-insured loans endorsed during that span.
The President's budget requests for FYs 2011 and 2012 acknowledged the underutilization of the section 238(c) program and advised that HUD would take action to halt the availability of the program in light of the significant underutilization. The FY 2011 budget request found at
The Budget assumes that HUD will administratively suspend the Section 238(c) program in 2011. The Section 238(c) program provides single family mortgage insurance similar to MMI for a small number of families in areas affected by military installations. The elimination of Section 238(c) will not negatively impact the availability of FHA insured financing in the six counties currently covered under this program. (See HUD Appendix to the Budget at page 620 at
This final rule follows publication of the August 30, 2011, proposed rule. The proposed rule provided for a 60-day public comment period, which closed on October 31, 2011. HUD did not receive any public comments, and HUD is adopting as final the proposed August 30, 2011, rule without change.
Consistent with the President's budget request and Executive Order (EO) 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” signed by the President on January 18, 2011, and published on January 21, 2011, at 76 FR 3821, this final rule suspends the section 238(c) program and removes § 203.43e from HUD's codified regulations. HUD's removal of the regulations at § 203.43e is not inconsistent with suspension of the section 238(c) mortgage insurance program. If HUD subsequently determines that there is a demand for this program and that military families would be better served by this program, HUD can reactivate it on the basis of the statutory language and does not need a regulation to make insurance available under this program. If such a situation occurs, HUD would notify the public through
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The final rule would not modify or add any new regulatory burdens on FHA-approved mortgage lenders. Rather, the final rule would remove § 203.43e from HUD's regulations, in conformity to HUD's (and the Administration's) decision to no longer exercise its authority to insure mortgages under section 238(c) of the Act. As more fully discussed above in the preamble to this rule, the mortgage insurance authority provided by section 238(c) of the Act has been minimally sought by eligible borrowers and consequently minimally utilized by lenders and other small entities participating in the FHA programs. Further, as noted above, section 238(c) mortgage insurance operated in a manner comparable to FHA's mortgage insurance program under section 203(b) of the Act, HUD's primary single-family mortgage insurance program.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the principal FHA single-family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.
Hawaiian Natives, Home improvement, Indians—lands, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Solar energy.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 24 CFR part 203 is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1709, 1710, 1715b, 1715z-16, and 1715u; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble and regulatory text of the proposed rule published in the
Maria Getoff, (202) 632-7003.
This document makes six technical corrections in the proposed rule to clarify that the definition of “summary proceeding” in proposed § 580.1 applies only to ordinance and management contract appeals and that the definition of “limited participant” applies only to appeals of disapprovals of gaming ordinances. Section 581.4 is corrected to reference all appeal actions listed in part 584. This notice corrects a typographical error in § 585.3(a) by replacing “§ 585.7 with “§ 585.6”, and clarifies that service of the record will be accomplished after a notice of appeal in proposed § 585.6. Finally, this correction removes limited participant from § 585.7(b) so that the proposed rule is consistent with part 585 and the definition of limited participant. This notice makes technical corrections to the preamble so that the preamble is consistent with the proposed rule.
In the preamble to proposed rule FR Doc. 2012-1767, beginning on page 4720 in the issue of January 31, 2012, make the following corrections in the
1. On page 4723 in the 1st column, second full paragraph remove “a notice of appeal and brief” and add in its place “an appeal brief”.
2. On page 4724 in the 1st column remove the first full paragraph.
3. On page 4724 in the 1st column, fifth full paragraph, remove “a notice of appeal and appeal brief” and add in its place “an appeal brief”.
In proposed rule FR Doc. 2012-1767, beginning on page 4720 in the issue of January 31, 2012, make the following corrections to the amendatory text:
1. On page 4725 in the 1st column, in § 580.1:
a. In the definition of “limited participant” remove the word “either” between the words “in” and “an” and remove “or an appeal on written submissions under 585.5”; and
b. Revise the definition of “summary proceeding”.
The revision reads as follows:
2. On page 4726, in the 2nd column, in § 581.4, add “the Commission's proposal to remove a certificate of self-regulation,” after the word, “contracts,”.
3. On page 4730, in the 2nd column, in § 585.3(a), remove “§ 585.7” and add in its place “§ 585.6”.
5. On page 4731, in the 1st column, in § 585.6, remove the following text, “an appeal brief” and add in its place, “a notice of appeal”.
6. On page 4731, in the 1st column, in § 585.7(b), remove “, and any limited participant”.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would require providers and suppliers receiving funds under the Medicare program to report and return overpayments by the later of the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on April 16, 2012.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-6037-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-1066 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Tiana Korley, (410) 786-9702.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
The Medicare program (title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act)) is the primary payer of health care for approximately 47 million enrolled beneficiaries. Providers and suppliers furnishing Medicare items and services must comply with the Medicare requirements set forth in the Act and in our regulations. The requirements are meant to ensure compliance with applicable statutes, promote the furnishing of high quality care, and to protect the Medicare Trust Funds against fraud and improper payments. As Medicare spending has grown, we have increased our efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program.
As part of these efforts we have twice proposed—but did not finalize—rules that would have amended our regulations related to Medicare overpayments. (See the March 25, 1998 (63 FR 14506) and January 25, 2002 (67 FR 3662) proposed rules.)
On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted. The Health Care Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) then amended certain provisions of Public Law 111-148. These public laws are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act makes a number of changes to the Medicare program that enhance our efforts to recover overpayments and combat fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicare program.
Section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act established a new section 1128J(d) of the Act entitled “Reporting and Returning of Overpayments.” Section 1128J(d)(1) of the Act requires a person who has received an overpayment to report and return the overpayment to the Secretary, the State, an intermediary, a carrier, or a contractor, as appropriate, at the correct address, and to notify the Secretary, State, intermediary, carrier or contractor to whom the overpayment was returned in writing of the reason for the overpayment. Section 1128J(d)(2) of the Act requires that an overpayment be reported and returned by the later of— (1) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (2) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. Section 1128J(d)(3) of the Act specifies that any overpayment retained by a person after the deadline for reporting and returning an overpayment is an obligation (as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(3)) for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729.
Section 1128J(d)(4)(A) defines “knowing” and “knowingly” as those terms are defined in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b); the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” “mean that a person with respect to information—(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.” There need not be “proof of specific intent to defraud.” Section 1128J(d)(4)(B) of the Act defines the term “overpayment” as any funds that a person receives or retains under title XVIII or XIX to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled under such title. Finally, section 1128J(d)(4)(C) of the Act defines the term “person” as a provider of services, supplier, Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) (as defined in section 1903(m)(1)(A) of the Act), Medicare Advantage organization (MAO) (as defined in section 1859(a)(1) of the Act) or PDP sponsor (PDP) (as defined in section 1860D-41(a)(13) of the Act) but the definition does not include a beneficiary.
To implement section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act, we propose establishing a new subpart D in Part 401 of our regulations. In this section, we outline the content of the proposed provisions of this new subpart D.
In proposed § 401.301, we state that subpart D sets forth the policies and procedures for reporting and returning overpayments to the Medicare program for providers and suppliers of services under Parts A and B of title XVIII. At this time, we are proposing to implement the requirements set forth in section 1128J(d) of the Act only as they relate to Medicare Part A and Part B providers and suppliers. Other stakeholders, including, without limitation, MAOs, PDPs, and Medicaid MCOs will be addressed at a later date.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, we remind all stakeholders that even without a final regulation they are subject to the statutory requirements
For purposes of this subpart only, we propose the following definitions:
Section 1128J(d) of the Act provides that an overpayment means “* * * any funds that a person receives or retains under title XVIII * * * to which the person, after applicable reconciliation, is not entitled under such title.” In § 401.303, we propose to include this same definition in our proposed rule. Examples of overpayments under this proposed definition could include all of the following:
• Medicare payments for noncovered services.
• Medicare payments in excess of the allowable amount for an identified covered service.
• Errors and nonreimbursable expenditures in cost reports.
• Duplicate payments.
• Receipt of Medicare payment when another payor had the primary responsibility for payment.
In certain circumstances, Medicare makes estimated payments for services with the knowledge that a reconciliation of those payments to actual costs will be done when the actual costs or related information becomes available, usually at a later date. Interim payments made to a provider throughout the cost year are reconciled with covered and reimbursable costs at the time the cost report is due. The statutory and proposed regulatory definition of the term overpayment acknowledges this practice and provides that an overpayment does not exist until after an applicable reconciliation takes place. When a provider files a cost report, the provider is attesting to the accuracy of the information contained on the cost report and must maintain the appropriate documentation supporting the costs that are claimed on the cost report. We rely upon the information that providers submit through the cost report and we believe that providers must accurately report any overpayments at the time they submit any cost reports to CMS—whether it is an initial submission of a cost report or an amended one.
We propose that the term “Medicare contractor” means a fiscal intermediary, carrier, durable medical equipment Medicare administrative contractor (DME MAC), or Part A/Part B Medicare administrative contractor. We believe that this proposed definition captures the different contractors that would be involved in receiving reports of overpayments as well as handling the return of overpayments, consistent with the statutory requirement.
We propose that a person means a provider (as defined in § 400.202) or supplier (as defined in § 400.202). This definition does not include a beneficiary. Our proposal is consistent with the definition of a “person” in section 1128J(d) of the Act.
Section 1128J of the Act provides that if a person has received an overpayment, the person shall “(i) report and return the overpayment to the Secretary * * * an intermediary, a carrier, or a contractor, as appropriate, at the correct address; and (ii) notify the Secretary * * * intermediary, carrier, or contractor to whom the overpayment was returned in writing of the reason for the overpayment.”
We propose to implement these requirements by using the existing voluntary refund process, which will be renamed the “self-reported overpayment refund process.” This process is described in Publication 100-06, Chapter 4 of the Medicare Financial Management Manual. Under the existing voluntary refund process, providers and suppliers report overpayments using a form that each Medicare contractor makes available on its Web site. The form requires that providers and suppliers provide information to allow CMS to identify the affected claims, such as the health insurance claim number (HICN); the provider's or supplier's name, number and tax identification number; and the date of service. The voluntary refund process also requires providers and suppliers to summarize why the refund is being made including the following information: (1) How the error was discovered; (2) a description of the corrective action plan implemented to ensure the error does not occur again; (3) the reason for the refund; (4) whether the provider or supplier has a corporate integrity agreement (CIA) with the OIG or is under the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol; (5) the timeframe and the total amount of refund for the period during which the problem existed that caused the refund; (6) Medicare claim control number, as appropriate; (7) Medicare National Provider Identification (NPI) number; (8) a refund in the amount of the overpayment; and (9) if a statistical sample was used to determine the overpayment amount, description of the statistically valid methodology used to determine the overpayment. We are proposing that providers and suppliers would be required to use the self-reported overpayment refund process set forth by the applicable Medicare contractor to report and return overpayments.
Some clarification may be helpful in defining potential reasons for an overpayment since such information must be reported under section 1128J(d) of the Act. While we cannot provide an exhaustive list of all potential reasons for the overpayment as required to be reported at § 401.305(d), we can provide examples. Examples of what a person may report as the reason for the overpayment include the following: (1) Incorrect service date; (2) duplicate payment; (3) incorrect CPT code; (4) insufficient documentation; and (5) lack of medical necessity. We note that many of the forms currently available from our contractors provide a “check the box” format that allows providers and suppliers to easily identify the reason for the overpayment. For overpayments that are not listed on the form that is available from the Medicare contractor, there is an associated “other” box that allows providers and suppliers to clarify the reason for the overpayment.
We make these proposals because we believe that the information requested under the existing voluntary refund process, such as the date of service and the HICN, is necessary to allow CMS to appropriately match claims information with the information that is reported by the provider or supplier and to understand the nature of the overpayment. Furthermore, we recognize that the reporting forms may differ among the different Medicare contractors and plan to develop a uniform reporting form that will enable all overpayments to be reported and returned in a consistent manner across all Medicare contractors. Until such uniform reporting form is made available, providers and suppliers should utilize the existing form available from the Web site of the applicable Medicare contractor as discussed earlier in this proposed rule.
Section 1128J of the Act provides that the terms `knowing' and `knowingly' have the meaning given those terms in the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(3)). The statutory text, however, does not use this phrase other than in the definitions. In § 401.305 (a)(2), we propose that a person has identified an overpayment if the person has actual knowledge of the existence of the overpayment or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the overpayment. We believe Congress' use of the term “knowing” in the ACA was intended to apply to determining when a provider or supplier has identified an overpayment. We believe defining “identification” in this way gives providers and suppliers an incentive to exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether an overpayment exists. Without such a definition, some providers and suppliers might avoid performing activities to determine whether an overpayment exists, such as self-audits, compliance checks, and other additional research.
Section 1128J of the Act provides that an overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of—(i) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (ii) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. Proposed § 401.305(b) contains an identical requirement. If an overpayment is claims related, the provider or supplier would be required to report and return the overpayment within 60 days of identification. However, for those providers that submit cost reports, if the overpayment is such that it would generally be reconciled on the cost report by the provider, the provider would be permitted to report and return the overpayment either 60 days from the identification of the overpayment or on the date the cost report is due, whichever is later. For example, issues involving upcoding must be reported and returned within 60 days of identification because the upcoded claims for payment are not submitted to Medicare in the form of cost reports. However, for an overpayment that would generally be reconciled on the cost report, such as overpayments related to graduate medical education payments, the provider must report and return the overpayment either 60 days after it has been identified or on the date the cost report is due, whichever is later. We believe that the qualifying language “if applicable” supports the proposed approach of only permitting providers to rely upon the cost report deadline when relevant to the determination of whether an actual overpayment exists. We make this clarification to avoid situations in which providers improperly delay reporting and returning a claims-related, identified overpayment until the date a cost report is due. We do not believe that Congress intended to create a loophole that would allow providers to delay reporting and returning an identified overpayment until a cost report is due if the overpayment would not ordinarily be reconciled on the cost report.
The proposed 60-day requirement to report and return overpayments would run from the date on which the person had identified the overpayment. As previously discussed, an overpayment has been identified at the time that a person acts with actual knowledge of, in deliberate ignorance of, or with reckless disregard to the overpayment's existence. In some cases, a provider or supplier may receive information concerning a potential overpayment that creates an obligation to make a reasonable inquiry to determine whether an overpayment exists. If the reasonable inquiry reveals an overpayment, the provider then has 60 days to report and return the overpayment. On the other hand, failure to make a reasonable inquiry, including failure to conduct such inquiry with all deliberate speed after obtaining the information, could result in the provider knowingly retaining an overpayment because it acted in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of whether it received such an overpayment. For example, a provider that receives an anonymous compliance hotline telephone complaint about a potential overpayment has incurred an obligation to timely investigate that matter. If the provider diligently conducts the investigation, and reports and returns any resulting overpayments within the 60-day reporting and repayment period, then the provider would have satisfied its obligations under the proposed rule. If, however, the provider fails to make any reasonable inquiry into the complaint, the provider may be found to have acted in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of any overpayment.
In order to assist providers and suppliers with understanding when an overpayment has been identified, we provide the following examples:
• A provider of services or supplier reviews billing or payment records and learns that it incorrectly coded certain services, resulting in increased reimbursement.
• A provider of services or supplier learns that a patient death occurred prior to the service date on a claim that has been submitted for payment.
• A provider of services or supplier learns that services were provided by an unlicensed or excluded individual on its behalf.
• A provider of services or supplier performs an internal audit and discovers that overpayments exist.
• A provider of services or supplier is informed by a government agency of an audit that discovered a potential overpayment, and the provider or supplier fails to make a reasonable inquiry. (When a government agency informs a provider or supplier of a potential overpayment, the provider or supplier has an obligation to accept the finding or make a reasonable inquiry. If the provider's or supplier's inquiry verifies the audit results, then it has identified an overpayment and, assuming there is no applicable cost report, has 60 days to report and return the overpayment. As noted previously, failure to make a reasonable inquiry, including failure to conduct such inquiry with all deliberate speed after obtaining the information, could result in the provider or supplier knowingly retaining an overpayment because it acted in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of whether it received such an overpayment).
• A provider of services or supplier experiences a significant increase in Medicare revenue and there is no apparent reason—such as a new partner added to a group practice or a new focus on a particular area of medicine—for the increase. Nevertheless, the provider or supplier fails to make a reasonable inquiry into whether an overpayment exists. (When there is reason to suspect an overpayment, but a provider or supplier fails to make a reasonable inquiry into whether an overpayment exists, it may be found to have acted in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of any overpayment.)
We emphasize that these examples are not an exhaustive list of situations where a person has identified an overpayment.
We recognize that there are also intersections between the obligation to report and return overpayments under section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act and the existing procedures for providers and suppliers to self-disclose actual or potential violations of the physician self-referral statute to CMS through the Medicare Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol (SRDP). Providers and suppliers self-disclose violations under the SRDP with the intention of resolving overpayment liability
We note that there are also intersections between the obligation to report and return an overpayment under section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act and the existing procedures for reporting self-discovered evidence of potential fraud to the OIG through the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol (OIG SDP). The OIG SDP is available on the OIG Web site at
Providers and suppliers should ensure that they are using the most appropriate process to report and return overpayments. In the October 30, 1998
We believe the distinctions drawn previously are relevant because the process of reporting and returning overpayments pursuant to section 1128J of the Act cannot resolve any potential False Claims Act or OIG administrative liability associated with the overpayment (even though returning an overpayment may, among other benefits, limit any FCA or administrative liability arising from the retention of an overpayment). Providers and suppliers should be aware that the contractors will scrutinize overpayments received through this process and may make referrals to OIG whenever the contractors believe circumstances warrant such a referral.
We are aware that providers and suppliers may be concerned about scenarios in which they have identified an overpayment but because of the magnitude of the overpayment, need additional time to make repayment. Providers and suppliers may not delay the identification date in these situations to meet the deadline prescribed for reporting and returning the overpayment. Instead, if a provider or supplier needs additional time due to financial constraints, the provider or supplier must use the existing Extended Repayment Schedule (ERS)
Finally, we note the following with regard to overpayments that arise due to a violation of the anti-kickback statute (section 1128B(b)(1) and (2) of the Act). Compliance with the anti-kickback statute is a condition of payment. Claims that include items and services resulting from a violation of this law are not payable and constitute false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. We recognize that, in many instances, a provider or supplier is not a party to, and is unaware of the existence of, an arrangement between third parties that causes the provider or supplier to submit claims that are the subject of a kickback. For example, a hospital may be unaware that a device manufacturer has paid a kickback to a physician on the hospital's medical staff to induce the physician to implant the manufacturer's device in procedures performed at the hospital. Moreover, even if a provider or supplier becomes aware of a potential third party payment arrangement, it would generally not be able to evaluate whether the payment was an illegal kickback or whether one or both parties had the requisite intent to violate the anti-kickback statute.
For this reason, we believe that providers who are not a party to a kickback arrangement are unlikely in most instances to have “identified” the overpayment that has resulted from the kickback arrangement and would therefore have no duty to report it or, as discussed later in this section, to repay it. To the extent that a provider or supplier who is not a party to a kickback arrangement has sufficient knowledge of the arrangement to have identified the resulting overpayment, the provider or supplier must report the overpayment to CMS in accordance with section 1128J(d) of the Act and corresponding
As previously noted, the statutory and our proposed regulatory definition of an overpayment acknowledges that, in some instances, we make interim payments to a provider through the cost year and that the provider reconciles these payments with covered and reimbursable costs at the time the cost report is due. In § 401.305(c), we propose that “applicable reconciliation” will occur with the provider's submission of a cost report. We believe that this would include an initial cost report submission or an amended cost report. We expect providers to accurately report and return overpayments at these points in time, because we rely upon the information that providers include on cost reports.
We propose to recognize two exceptions to the general rule that the applicable reconciliation occurs with the provider's submission of a cost report. The first exception is related to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) ratios used in the calculation of disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment adjustment. We publish these ratios annually on our Web site and providers are expected to use the appropriate ratio when submitting the cost report for that cost year, unless the published ratios are not available at the time the cost report is due. In instances where the provider later receives more recent information regarding its SSI ratio, we propose that the provider would not be required to amend the cost report or calculate the change in reimbursement and return the potential overpayment until the final reconciliation of the provider's cost report occurs. The second exception is related to the outlier reconciliation. We perform an outlier reconciliation at the time the cost report is settled if certain thresholds are exceeded. Prior to this reconciliation the actual amount of any overpayment is not known. In instances where the provider is aware it has exceeded the established thresholds and an outlier reconciliation will be performed, we propose that the provider would not be required to estimate the change in reimbursement and return the estimated overpayment until the final settlement of that cost report.
Section 1128J(d) of the Act provides that any overpayment retained by a person after the deadline for reporting and returning the overpayment is an obligation for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729. Any person who “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government” may be found liable under the False Claims Act. (See 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.) Proposed § 401.305(f) contains a similar statement. Additionally, any person who “knows of an overpayment [as defined in section 1128J(d)(4) of the Act] and does not report and return the overpayment in accordance with such section” may be found liable under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (section 1128A(a)(10) of the Act) and accordingly could be excluded from participation in Federal health care programs (section 1128A of the Act).
In § 401.305(g), we are proposing that overpayments must be reported and returned only if a person identifies the overpayment within 10 years of the date the overpayment was received. We selected 10 years because this is the outer limit of the False Claims Act statute of limitations. We believe that the proposed 10-year lookback period is appropriate for several reasons. First, we believe that providers and suppliers should have certainty after a reasonable period that they can close their books and not have ongoing liability associated with an overpayment. We also believe that the length of the lookback period is long enough to sufficiently further our interest in ensuring that overpayments are timely returned to the Medicare Trust Funds.
We propose to amend the reopening rules at § 405.980(b) to provide that overpayments reported in accordance with § 401.305 may be reopened for a period of 10 years. We make this proposal in order to ensure that our reopening regulations are consistent with the lookback period that we are proposing. We seek comment on the proposed 10-year lookback period. In addition, we seek comment on our proposal to amend the reopening rules to provide for a 10-year reopening period.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 60-day notice in the
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of these issues for the following sections of this document that contain information collection requirements (ICRs):
Proposed § 401.305 states that a provider or supplier must report and return an overpayment to the Secretary, the State, an intermediary, a carrier or a contractor to the correct address by the later of 60 days after the overpayment was identified or the date the corresponding cost report is due and notify the Secretary, the State, an intermediary, a carrier or a contractor in writing of the reason for the overpayment. The burden associated with this requirement would be the time and effort necessary to report and return the overpayment in the manner described at § 401.305.
For purposes of this section only, we estimate that approximately 125,000 providers and suppliers (or roughly 8.5 percent of the total number of Medicare providers and suppliers) would report and return overpayments in a typical year under our proposed provisions. In addition, we project that each of these providers and suppliers would, on average, separately report and return approximately 3 to 5 overpayments. We also estimate that it would take a provider or supplier approximately 2.5
If you comment on these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please do either of the following:
1. Submit your comments electronically as specified in the
2. Submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, [CMS-6037-P], Fax: (202) 395-5806; or Email:
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
This proposed rule is necessary to implement section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act, which established a new section 1128J(d) of the Act entitled “Reporting and Returning of Overpayments.” Section 1128J(d)(1) of the Act requires a person who has received an overpayment to report and return the overpayment to the Secretary, the State, an intermediary, a carrier, or a contractor, as appropriate, at the correct address, and to notify the Secretary, State, intermediary, carrier or contractor to whom the overpayment was returned in writing of the reason for the overpayment. Section 1128J(d)(2) of the Act requires that an overpayment must be reported and returned by the later of—(1) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (2) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. Section 1128J(d)(3) of the Act specifies that any overpayment retained by a person after the deadline for reporting and returning an overpayment is an obligation (as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(3)) for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729. As a result, this proposed rule clarifies to providers and suppliers their legal obligations regarding the reporting and returning of overpayments.
We have examined the impact of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. A regulation impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any one year).
As discussed earlier in the preamble, even without a final regulation, all stakeholders are subject to the statutory requirements found in section 1128J(d) of the Act and could face potential False Claims Act liability, Civil Monetary Penalties Law liability, and exclusion from Federal health care programs for failure to report and return an overpayment. This proposed rule would impose a new deadline on the return of any overpayment that has been identified. We believe that this change would spur providers to be more diligent in reporting and returning overpayments. That will likely increase the overpayments that we collect, but we do not have a basis for estimating the magnitude of that change, and note the substantial uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of new collections. The burden costs for reporting and returning of overpayments, as discussed in section III. of this proposed rule, are estimated annually between $34.78 million to $57.97 million. As a result, this
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other health care providers and suppliers are small entities, either by being nonprofit organizations or by meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition of a small business and having revenues of less than $7 million to $34.5 million in any 1 year. (For details, see the Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards at
Section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposed of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital located outside of the Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. The cost of the required reporting should be minimal for small rural hospitals because standard business practices dictate keeping accurate records concerning monies due and/or payable. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because the Secretary has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $136 million. This proposed rule would have no effect on the annual expenditures of any State, local or tribal government, or the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement cost on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this proposed rule does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In light of the statutory mandate in section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act, we did not consider any alternatives to the implementation of this provision. We did, however, contemplate several operational mechanisms to alleviate the burden on the provider and supplier communities.
First, we considered and elected to utilize the existing voluntary refund process. This would allow providers and suppliers to use a reporting mechanism with which they are already familiar.
Second, we contemplated the appropriate length of time in which overpayments must be reported and returned. A time period of less than 10 years was considered, as this would ease the burden on providers and suppliers. However, and as explained earlier, we selected 10 years because this is the outer limit of the False Claims Act statute of limitations. More importantly, we believe that the need to protect the Medicare Trust Fund was of primary importance. It is not possible for us to calculate the costs associated with a 10-year period versus, for instance, a 5-year period. We do, though, solicit comments on this issue, similar to our earlier solicitation of comments on the propriety of a 10-year period.
Third, as with the overpayment reporting period, we contemplated a reopening timeframe of less than 10 years. Yet we selected a 10-year timeframe in order to ensure that our reopening regulations are consistent with the 10-year lookback period. The costs of a shorter lookback period cannot be estimated, though we welcome comments on this issue.
We solicit comment on the analysis provided in this section.
We do not anticipate any impact on beneficiary access to care as a result of this proposed rule. As mentioned, the only burden associated with our proposed provisions involves the ICR aspects of reporting and returning overpayments. We do not believe that this burden—which, in any event, would only affect a small percentage of providers and suppliers—would cause a particular provider or supplier to reduce the services it furnishes to beneficiaries.
Claims, Freedom of information, Health facilities, Medicare, Privacy.
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health professions, Kidney diseases, Medical devices, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, X-rays.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend Chapter IV as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. Part 401 is amended by adding subpart D to read as follows:
This subpart sets forth the policies and procedures for reporting and returning overpayments to the Medicare program for providers and suppliers of services under Parts A and B of title XVIII of the Act as required by section 1128J of the Act.
For purposes of this subpart—
(a)
(2) A person has identified an overpayment if the person has actual knowledge of the existence of the overpayment or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of the existence of the overpayment.
(b)
(i) The date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified.
(ii) The date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable.
(2) The deadline for returning overpayments will be suspended when either of the following occurs:
(i) OIG acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol until such time as a settlement agreement is entered, the person withdraws from the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol, or the person is removed from the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol.
(ii) CMS acknowledges receipt of a submission to the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol until such time as a settlement agreement is entered, the person withdraws from the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol, or the person is removed from the Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol.
(c)
(2) In instances when the provider—
(i) Receives more recent CMS information on the SSI ratio, the provider is not required to return any overpayment resulting from the updated information until the final reconciliation of the provider's cost report occurs; or
(ii) Knows that an outlier reconciliation will be performed, the provider is not required to estimate the change in reimbursement and return the estimated overpayment until the final reconciliation of that cost report.
(d)
(1) Person's name.
(2) Person's tax identification number.
(3) How the error was discovered.
(4) The reason for the overpayment.
(5) The health insurance claim number, as appropriate.
(6) Date of service.
(7) Medicare claim control number, as appropriate.
(8) Medicare National Provider Identification (NPI) number.
(9) Description of the corrective action plan to ensure the error does not occur again.
(10) Whether the person has a corporate integrity agreement with the OIG or is under the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol.
(11) The timeframe and the total amount of refund for the period during which the problem existed that caused the refund.
(12) If a statistical sample was used to determine the overpayment amount, a description of the statistically valid methodology used to determine the overpayment.
(13) A refund in the amount of the overpayment. A person may request an extended repayment schedule as that term is defined in § 401.603.
(e)
(2) A person satisfies the reporting obligations of this section by making a disclosure under the OIG's Self-Disclosure Protocol resulting in a settlement agreement using the process described in the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol.
(f)
(g)
3. In § 401.607(c)(2)(i), the definition of “Hardship” is amended by removing the phrase “outstanding overpayments (principal and interest)” and adding in its place the phrase “outstanding overpayments (principal and interest and including overpayments reported in accordance with §§ 401.301 through 401.305.)”
4. The authority for part 405 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1102, 1862, and 1871 of the Social Security Act as amended (42 U.S.C.1302, 1395y, and 1395hh).
5. Section 405.980 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) Within 10 years from the date of initial determination or redetermination if the overpayment is reported in accordance with § 401.305.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This Fourth FNPRM seeks comment on whether it would be in the public interest to extend the viewability rule and the HD carriage exemption, both of which are currently scheduled to sunset on June 12, 2012. First, we seek comment on whether to extend, in its current form, the “viewability” rule, which implements the statutory requirement that all cable subscribers, including those with analog equipment, be able to view must carry television signals. Second, given the apparent widespread reliance of small cable
Submit comments on or before March 12, 2012. Submit replies on or before March 22, 2012.
Lyle Elder,
The proceeding this Fourth FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
1. In 2007, the Commission adopted certain rules to protect consumers as the transition to digital television (DTV) approached.
2. Also in 2007, the Commission adopted a related rule regarding the prohibition on material degradation of broadcast signals when carried by cable systems. One aspect of this rule is the requirement that any signal broadcast in high definition (“HD”) also be carried by cable operators in HD. In response to concerns from commenters about cost and technical capacity, the Commission granted a three-year exemption from this HD carriage rule to the operators of certain small cable systems. As with the viewability rule, the Commission held that the small cable HD exemption would sunset in three years absent action by the Commission to revise or extend it. Thus, this exemption will also expire on June 12, 2012 unless the Commission takes action to extend it.
3. We initiate this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth FNPRM) in the DTV cable carriage docket to determine whether it would be in the public interest to extend this rule and exemption. For the reasons described below, we seek comment on whether to extend the “viewability” rule for three more years to ensure that all cable subscribers, including those with analog equipment, continue to have access to must carry television signals. Given the apparent widespread reliance of small cable operators on the HD exemption, we propose to extend it for an additional three years, but ask whether this should be the final extension. We note that both rule and exemption would have expired on February 17, 2012 if the DTV transition had not been delayed by Congress. The Commission is therefore concurrently issuing a Declaratory Order clarifying that both the viewability rule and the HD Carriage Exemption will sunset on June 12, 2012, absent Commission action to extend them.
4. Pursuant to Section 614(b)(4)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”),
5. In the
6. Since passage of the 1992 Cable Act, the Commission has consistently found that “mere transmission of the must-carry signal is not sufficient to meet the requirements” of the statute.
We believe that the 1992 Act is clear in its requirement that all local commercial television stations carried in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements must be provided to every cable subscriber and must be viewable on all television sets that are connected to the cable system by a cable operator for which the cable operator provides a connection. The Act does not give the Commission authority to exempt any class of subscribers from this requirement.
7. As the Commission also made clear in 2007, viewability of broadcast signals is not only mandated by statute, but is also of vital importance to the broadcast stations that rely on the Commission's “must carry” rules and to all consumers of television programming. The Commission noted that,
Furthermore, the Commission found that, without action, “analog cable subscribers and households that rely solely on over-the-air broadcast television may well face ‘a reduction in the number of media voices’ and the loss of `the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.'”
8. In order to ensure that digital signals would be actually viewable by all subscribers, the Commission adopted a two-part rule and allowed systems to choose how they would comply. Section 76.56(d)(3) of the Commission's rules provides:
(3) The viewability and availability requirements of this section require that, after the broadcast television transition from analog to digital service for full power television stations cable operators must either:
(i) Carry the signals of commercial and non-commercial must-carry stations in analog format to all analog cable subscribers, or
(ii) For all-digital systems, carry those signals in digital format, provided that all subscribers, including those with analog television sets, that are connected to a cable system by a cable operator or for which the cable operator provides a connection have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.
This rule ensures that all subscribers are able to view must-carry programming, while still providing flexibility to operators who have been, and continue to be, transitioning to an all-digital system on their own schedules.
9. We seek comment on whether we should extend the viewability rule or permit it to sunset.
10. The sunset of the viewability rule would potentially impact millions of subscribers, and the broadcasters who would be unable to reach them.
11. As discussed in the
12. Furthermore, the Commission affirmed in the
13. We note that some cable operators, such as RCN and BendBroadband, transmit only digital signals and have eliminated analog service in all of their systems.
14. We seek comment on whether to extend the existing viewability rule. To the extent the Commission decides to retain the rule, we seek comment on whether it should be retained for another three years or a different period of time. Is three years too long or is a sunset at some later date more advisable? The Commission considered possible alternative rules in the
15. Unlike the alternatives proposed, the rule the Commission adopted in 2007 ensures viewability by all subscribers, while simultaneously giving cable operators the flexibility to choose the best option for complying with their viewability obligations.
16. Finally, we seek comment on any other proposals that would achieve the results necessary to assure the viewability of must-carry signals through an approach different than that of our existing rule. To the extent any parties find the current rule burdensome, we seek comment on proposals that will satisfy the statute in a less burdensome manner. Is any rule necessary to effectuate the statutory intent? If so, any proposals for an alternative rule to ensure the actual viewability of must-carry signals should include specific proposed wording, as well as an analysis of how the proposal is consistent with the statute.
17. The Act also requires that cable operators carry broadcast signals “without material degradation.”
18. Based on the comments received in response to the
19. The exemption was not intended to be permanent, however. The Commission instead provided it for a three-year window, in order to give small systems “a clear opportunity to come into compliance with the rules by spreading their effort and costs over an extended period.”
20. We tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest to extend the small-system HD exemption for another three years because the number of systems relying on the exemption indicates that three years did not provide sufficient time for some small systems to come into compliance in a cost-effective way.
21. As noted above, the central purpose of the exemption was to provide small systems with additional time to upgrade and, where necessary, expand their systems to come into full compliance with the material degradation provisions of the carriage rules by carrying HD versions of all HD broadcast signals without making relatively large expenditures over a short period of time.
22. Comments at the time of the initial grant of this exemption indicated that it was necessary to protect the economic health of some small systems, and indeed that some systems might become too expensive to continue operation without the exemption.
23. Subsequent to the Commission's adoption of the
24. The
25. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”)
26. This
27. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in Sections 4, 303, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 534, and 535.
28. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules if adopted.
29.
30. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. The
36. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
37. The requirements proposed in the
38. None.
39.
40.
41.
Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Equal employment opportunity, Political candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
2. Section 76.56 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(5) The requirements set forth in paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall cease to be effective June 12, 2015, unless the Commission extends the requirements prior to that date.
The following pages will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
1. The FCC collects data from cable operators annually on the “Annual Report of Cable Systems” also called “Form 325.” Through this form, the FCC collects basic operational information from cable television systems nationwide, including data about their architecture, capacity and number of subscribers. Each year the FCC designates a sample of cable systems having fewer than 20,000 subscribers and all systems having 20,000 or more subscribers to file Form 325. Staff performed an analysis of the Form 325 data from the 2010 filing year for use in the viewability proceeding.
2. Filers of Form 325 report information on the channels carried, including for broadcast channels whether the channel is carried pursuant to a must-carry designation or a retransmission consent agreement. Staff analyzed the 2010 filings and found that approximately 780 of 2000 full-service and low-power stations elected or defaulted to must carry.
3. To make this approximation, staff first extracted from the Form 325 database all records where a cable operator marked a channel as either retransmission-consent or must-carry. A single broadcast station often has multiple entries on the Form 325 if the operator carried multiple versions to comply with the viewability requirements or if the operator chose to carry multicast streams of a single station. For example, WXXX-TV was reported 92 times by 25 cable systems with 7 different spellings.
4. Next, the staff reduced the number of entries per cable system to one by considering that if at any one of those entries was marked as must-carry, then that station was must-carry on that cable system. The dataset for WXXX was then reduced to one report for each of the 25 cable systems. If any one of the entries for a cable system was marked as must-carry, the report for that cable system was must-carry.
5. Due to either different elections on different cable systems or accidental misreporting by cable operators, many stations had a mixture of must-carry and retransmission-consent reports.
6. The staff aggregated the reports, and if operators reported a station as must-carry as or more often as operators reported that station as retransmission-consent, the staff considered that station to prefer must-carry. In this case, the majority of cable systems reports retransmission consent, so WXXX was assigned a single preference:
7. The process was repeated for each of the approximately 2000 broadcast stations listed in the 325 reports. In the event of an equal number of systems reporting must-carry and retransmission consent, the station was considered to have chosen must-carry.
8. Staff analyzed the “number of digital channels activated” and “number of analog channels activated” data fields in the Form 325 reports from filing year 2010. A hybrid system has at least one activated analog channel and at least one activated digital channel. As the Form 325 is collected by a sample of cable systems, staff performed the below analysis to determine that 56.8 million of the 62 million cable subscribers are on hybrid systems.
9. Of the 565 systems that reported more than 20,000 subscribers, 542 were hybrid systems, with those systems serving 46.6 million subscribers. No scaling factor was necessary as reports must be filed by all systems with more than 20,000 subscribers.
10. Of the 249 systems that reported between 5,000 and 20,000 subscribers, 233 were hybrid systems serving 2.7 million subscribers. A representative sample of systems with between 5,000 and 20,000 is asked to file reports each year. Based on previous years' Form 325 reports and other research, staff estimated that there are 451 such systems in total. When the data was extrapolated, staff estimated that 422 of the 451 systems are hybrid. Thus, the 2.7 million subscribers were scaled by a multiple of (422/233), yielding an estimated total of 4.9 million subscribers.
11. Of the 154 systems that reported fewer than 5000 subscribers, 91 were hybrid systems serving 184 thousand subscribers. A representative sample of systems with fewer than 5000 subscribers is asked to file reports each year. Based on previous years' Form 325 reports and other research, staff estimated that there are 4450 such systems in total. When the data was extrapolated, staff estimated that 2630 of the 4450 systems are hybrid. When scaled by a multiple of (2630/91), staff estimated that there are a total of 5.3 million subscribers served by these systems.
12. Staff summed the total number of subscribers served by hybrid systems and came up with a result of 56.8 million such subscribers (46.6 million + 4.9 million + 5.3 million).
Staff used a similar process as described above to estimate the total number of cable subscribers in the U.S. as approximately 62 million. This total is close to other publicly available estimates of cable subscribers.
1. Open session, Tuesday, February 28, 2012,
2. Closed session, Tuesday, February 28, 2012,
Due to security requirements and limited seating, all individuals wishing to attend the open session of the meeting must notify Sarah Conway at (202) 233-8811 or
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a revision to a previous data collection to understand better the shopping patterns of SNAP participants at farmers' markets. The purpose of this collection is for the Food and Nutrition Service to understand how private organizations operate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) financial incentive programs for clients purchasing fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets. Information collected will be used to examine how these organizations design, operate, and evaluate incentive programs to encourage SNAP clients to shop for fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets. It will also assist in assessing how much these programs influence the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets using SNAP benefits.
Written comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Steven Carlson at 703-305-2017.
This study is not intended to be nationally representative. Organizations to be included in this study will be chosen from a list of private organizations that is developed based on responses received from farmers' market managers responding to the FNS study, Nutrition Assistance in Farmers' Markets: Understanding Current Operations (76 FR 79646, 12/22/11). To assist in the selection process, the list will tentatively categorize the organizations (Business-for and not-for-profit) into three groups:
(1) Type I: fairly large organizations that provide grant money to other organizations that administer incentive program for SNAP clients;
(2) Type II: smaller than the Type I organizations, Type II organizations distribute the SNAP financial incentives to farmers' markets and administer the incentive program for SNAP clients in the markets that they support; and
(3) Type III: local organizations that provide money for incentive program for SNAP clients.
Further stratification of the frame may be made based on whether the organizations also provide non-financial support. Non-financial support might include providing information and technical assistance for implementing or managing incentive program for SNAP clients or providing staff to work at the farmers' markets and assist with the management of the programs onsite.
There are two main data collection activities for this study. They include:
• Conducting a telephone interview with each of one to three key staff at selected organizations that provide and/or administer farmers' market SNAP incentives. The interview is designed to gather qualitative data to better understand the:
○ Relationship of the organizations to the farmers' markets that obtain incentive funds for SNAP clients;
○ Primary mission of the organizations and their history with SNAP;
○ Source of the financial support for the organizations' incentive program for SNAP clients, and whether other types of support are offered;
○ Number of markets a specific organization supported in 2012;
○ Selection process and requirements for farmers' markets to be awarded incentive dollars for distribution to SNAP clients;
○ Factors that make it difficult to implement and manage incentive programs; and
○ Characteristics of successful incentive programs.
The telephone interview will also capture information on whether the organizations maintain and/or collect information on the performance of their incentive program. This self-evaluation data may include information regarding the number of incentives redeemed by markets with an incentive program, vendor satisfaction with the program, and/or data used for assessing the impact of these programs on farmers' market sales and SNAP participation at farmers' markets.
• Collecting and evaluating self-evaluation data of participating organizations. Organizations identified during the telephone interviews as maintaining data on their incentive program for SNAP clients will be asked to share this data for the purpose of this research study. Self-evaluation data shared by organizations may include for example, the number of other organizations or farmers' markets that they awarded or are managing financial incentive programs for, the volume of SNAP incentive redemptions, dollar amount of unredeemed incentives, and other information. These data will help identify differences across incentive programs with respect to performance in 2012. In combination, the self-evaluation data, organizational and incentive program characteristics obtained through interviews, and ALERT data, will inform how such incentive programs for SNAP clients may work best in the context of individual markets.
Food and Nutrition Service.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, gives notice of intent to conduct analysis and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the removal of the noxious weed Tamarisk across the Los Padres National forest: This notice announces the beginning of scoping, describes the proposed action, decisions to be made, and estimates the dates for filing the draft and final EIS. This notice also provides information concerning public participation, and the names and addresses of the Agency officials who can provide information.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis will be received for 45 days from publication in the
Send written comments to Los Padres National Forest, 6755 Hollister Avenue, Suite 150, Goleta, CA 93117, attention: Lloyd Simpson, Forest Botanist. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to:
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action.
Questions about the proposed action may be directed to Project Team Leader, Lloyd Simpson, Los Padres National Forest, Ojai Ranger District, 1190 E. Ojai Ave., Ojai, CA 93023; or by telephone: (805) 646-4348 ext. 316. E-mail:
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
There is a need to eradicate the noxious weed tamarisk from Piru Creek, Lockwood Creek, Cuyama River, Santa Ynez River, Sisquoc River, and Arroyo Seco River in order to restore and maintain habitat for riparian dependent species such as the federally listed arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, and steelhead trout. The purpose of this project is to eradicate tamarisk in a timely manner and with an approach that is pest-specific, cost effective, and safe for the human and aquatic environments.
The project area is on the Los Padres National Forest in portions of the Piru Creek, Lockwood Creek, Cuyama River, Santa Ynez River, Sisquoc River, and Arroyo Seco River watersheds. The analysis area covers 4,247 acres and 368 miles of perennial and intermittent streams. Infestations of tamarisk occurring in these streams and their tributaries within the analysis area are targeted for removal.
For fish and wildlife, direction is provided to maintain fisheries habitat for viable populations of native fish species and to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The Forest Plan states that “management activities or practices may occur in riparian areas as long as habitat and species diversity of the area is maintained in a healthy state” and
The Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) proposes to control the invasive species tamarisk in portions of the Piru Creek, Lockwood Creek, Cuyama River, Santa Ynez River, Sisquoc River, and Arroyo Seco River watersheds. This action will result in the improvement of riparian ecosystems that have been impacted by the invasion of tamarisk.
Tamarisk has replaced the native riparian plant community of willows, cottonwoods and other desirable native riparian species. Its water-consuming ability has reduced the surface water available to wildlife. The best management strategy is to enact control measures now before the tamarisk infestations become any larger.
Successful invasive species control programs are implemented at the landscape level, particularly within watersheds for species that colonize stream courses. Partnerships are especially important for accomplishing weed control. Volunteers have worked for many years on the Los Padres to remove and control tamarisk. They will continue to be part of this effort.
Tamarisk infestations have various impacts on a number of federally listed threatened (FT) and endangered (F-E) species, as well as some Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive (R5-S) species. Federally listed endangered Least Bell's vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher have been known to nest in large groves of habitat dominated by tamarisk, but this is not likely in the Los Padres NF given the scattered nature of the present tamarisk populations. However, it is well documented that tamarisk removal will restore natural habitat for these birds as well as arroyo toad (F-E), California red-legged frog (F-T), southwestern pond turtle (R5-S), two-striped garter snake (R5-S) and steelhead trout (both F-E and F-T) stocks.
This project is designed to eradicate current infestations of Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima, T chinensis, T gallica, T parviflora) and to prevent its further spread on National Forest System land. Tamarisk is a nonnative invasive tree-shrub that can grow in dense patches, out-compete native vegetation, change soil chemistry by depositing salts in deep ground water on the soil surface, and remove large amounts of water from streams and riparian areas via evapo-transpiration through its foliage. This project covers portions of the Piru Creek, Lockwood Creek, Cuyama River, Santa Ynez River, Sisquoc River, and Arroyo Seco River watersheds.
The current tamarisk infestation covers 368 miles or 4,247 acres of riparian habitat on NFS lands. The goal is to implement control measures now before tamarisk becomes a larger problem in riparian ecosystems.
The methods of tamarisk eradication have several constraints in this project: (1) Many treatment areas are very steep, making access and logistics difficult. There is no motorized access to most of the project area, much of it is in Congressionally designated Wilderness. All supplies and equipment must either be packed or flown in. Pile-burning cut tamarisk stems is not feasible due to the logistics of getting crews and suppression resources down into the canyons to do it. (2) There are few suitable areas to relocate tamarisk stems for disposal via burn piles. (3) There is habitat known for Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, two federally endangered birds in the Piru creek watershed. The habitat area contains scattered tamarisk within the riparian vegetation.
The proposed action is a combination of tamarisk treatment methods designed to be as light on the land as possible and at the same time cost and labor efficient. The methods used will be a combination of hand treatments, herbicide applications, and biological control. Tamarisk seedlings will be removed by hand by pulling and placing them where they cannot reestablish. Herbicides are essential to meet the project objectives. Tamarisk will re-sprout if simply cut down and/or burned. Herbicide treatments are the most effective and the most efficient control method currently available. Herbicide use will be consistent with the Forest Service Pesticide Use Policy, will be in compliance with state and federal regulations, will follow Region 5 Best Management Practices for Vegetation Manipulation, the Region 5 Supplement for Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination, and the Forest Plan guidance including the Supplement to Soil and Water Conservation Practices FSH 2509.22-2005-1. A bio-control insect bred to assist in the treatment and control of tamarisk infestations is currently available. While tamarisk distribution across NFS land may be too spread out to maintain effective populations of a control insect, use of the insect may be appropriate in areas where there is higher tamarisk density.
Herbicide treatments will be restricted to ground-based/hand applications only; NO AERIAL SPRAYING is being proposed.
Seedlings and young plants will be hand-pulled where possible and removed from the riparian area and placed in the sun minimizing soil contact with the roots. Experience with hand pulling has shown that only plants 1 foot tall or less can be successfully removed. We will begin removing the younger plants on the boundaries of infestations and do as much as we can each year.
Large tamarisk within 10 horizontal feet of standing or running water will be treated with imazapyr (Habitat or similar formulation). Treatment type will depend on size of the individual tamarisk plant and the access available to do the treatment. Cut plant material will be removed from the waterway but left in small piles as wildlife habitat.
For plants beyond the 10 horizontal feet of standing or running water, another herbicide, triclopyr (Garlon 4 or similar formulation) may be used. Triclopyr is not labeled for use around water and would only be used on upland plants. Treatments would be similar to imazapyr and based on plant size. Cut material will be disposed of in the same way as the cut riparian tamarisk described earlier.
• To avoid trampling of arroyo toads and California red-legged frogs, a qualified biologist would conduct a training session for all project personnel prior to conducting the proposed action in habitat for arroyo toads and California red-legged frogs. At a minimum, the training would include a description of the arroyo toad and its habitat, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act; the necessity for adhering to the provisions of the Act; the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act; the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the listed species as they relate to the project; and the access routes to and from project site boundaries within which the treatments may be accomplished.
• In arroyo toad and California red-legged frog habitat, all routes to treatment sites would be identified by a qualified biologist and used repeatedly by workers to minimize trampling of arroyo toads and vegetation.
• Applicators would avoid walking or stepping in water, to the maximum extent possible. They would also avoid spilling herbicide on footwear and clothing to prevent inadvertent contamination if contact with water occurs.
• All access routes and treatment sites within arroyo toad and California red-legged frog habitat would be thoroughly searched for the presence of arroyo toads and California red-legged frog by a qualified biologist, prior to the onset of project activities at each site. This should occur within two weeks of work commencement.
• Arroyo toads and California red-legged frog found within the treatment sites shall be carefully moved outside the immediate work area and released by a qualified biologist permitted by USFWS to handle these species. Animals found within access routes may be moved to appropriate habitat if their avoidance is not practicable. If project activities cease for more than three days within any one treatment site, access routes and treatment areas would be searched again for arroyo toads and California red-legged frog prior to the start of the day's work. Information that includes the date, time of capture, specific location of capture, approximate size, age and health of the individual would be recorded.
• Treatments will be conducted during low stream flow or no stream flow periods of the year to avoid potential impacts to steelhead trout or their spawning redds during the late fall to early winter months.
• If workers encounter aquatic wildlife species other than arroyo toads and California red-legged frog during project implementation they will allow the animal(s) to flee to safe areas out of the work sites or physically move the animals to safe locations.
A full range of alternatives will be considered including action and no-action. Alternatives responding to issues generated during the scoping process and interdisciplinary team project development will also be developed and considered. All alternatives will comply with the Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan.
Peggy Hernandez, Forest Supervisor, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta California, is the responsible official for the EIS and its Record of Decision. As the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor will document the decision and reason for the decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeals Regulations (36 CFR part 215).
1. Whether the proposed action will proceed as proposed, with modifications, or not at all.
2. What associated mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be required.
1. Hand removal is not controlling the current infestations of Tamarisk and herbicides are needed.
2. Use of herbicides and the need to protect water quality and public safety.
3. Presence of listed threatened and endangered species, their habitat, and/or mapped critical habitat.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
The Forest Supervisor is seeking public and agency comment on the proposed action to identify issues that arise from the proposed action. The issues may lead to other alternatives, or additional mitigation measure and monitoring requirements. In addition to this notice, public scoping letters will be mailed to interested parties.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way they are useful to the Agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent administrative appeal of judicial review.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet March 6, 2012, 9 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Export Enforcement update.
4. Regulations update.
5. Working group reports.
6. Automated Export System (AES) update.
7. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 11, 2012, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determination by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, the Department is publishing notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty order.
Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5047.
On September 1, 2011, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
The Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this order. As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail were the order to be revoked.
On February 6, 2012, the ITC published its determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The merchandise covered by the order is furfuryl alcohol (C
The product subject to the order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.
The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Effective Date: February 16, 2012.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that large power transformers from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated dumping margins are listed in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination.
David Cordell or Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0408 or (202) 482-7924, respectively.
On August 10, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty investigation on large power transformers from Korea.
On August 10, 2011, the Department notified all interested parties of its intent to select mandatory respondents for this investigation based on U.S. import data obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and set aside a period of time for parties to comment on the potential respondent selection. Parties were invited to submit comments within five calendar days from the date of that memorandum.
On August 29, 2011, and August 30, 2011, Department officials visited Canonsburg, Pennsylvania to meet with officials of Pennsylvania Transformer Technology Inc., a petitioner in this proceeding, and their legal counsel, and also toured their facility.
On September 2, 2011, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from Korea of large power transformers.
On September 16, 2011, we selected Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Hyundai) and Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung) as the mandatory respondents in this investigation and issued the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to both respondents on September 28, 2011.
Hyundai and Hyosung submitted responses to section A of the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on November 2, 2011 and on November 16, 2011, both respondents submitted their responses to sections B (
On November 23, 2011, petitioners made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination and on December 6, 2011, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 9, 2011.
On November 30, 2011, the Department received an allegation from petitioners that home market sales made by Hyosung were made at prices below the cost of production and on December 9, 2011, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost of production investigation with respect to Hyosung.
On November 21, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire concerning Hyosung's section A-C responses. On December 12, and 19, 2011, Hyosung submitted its response to this supplemental questionnaire. On December 14, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding Hyosung's section D response.
On December 29, 2011, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire covering Hyosung's section A-C and supplemental responses. On January 6, 2012, we received the supplemental cost (
On November 21, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire concerning Hyundai's section A-C responses. On December 12, 2011, Hyundai responded to this questionnaire. Also on December 12, 2011, Hyundai filed its response to the constructed value sections of the section D questionnaire.
On December 23, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Hyundai covering Hyundai's section B-D responses. Hyundai responded to this supplemental questionnaire on January 13, and 18, 2012. On January 9, 2012, the Department issued a third sales supplemental questionnaire as well as a second supplemental cost questionnaire to which Hyundai responded on January 23, 2012.
On December 30, 2011, the Department received an allegation from petitioners that home market sales made by Hyundai were made at prices below the cost of production and on February 9, 2012, the Department decided not to initiate a sales-below-cost of production investigation.
With regard to cost estimates provided by respondents thus far, the Department will accept updated information for actual costs through and including December 31, 2011, where available. Further, with regard to estimates in the sales database, the Department will accept the corresponding actual sales information only through December 31, 2011. The Department does not expect to request updated information on sales or cost estimates for dates subsequent to December 31, 2011.
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition.
The scope of this investigation covers large liquid dielectric power transformers (LPTs) having a top power handling capacity greater than or equal to 60,000 kilovolt amperes (60 megavolt amperes), whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete.
Incomplete LPTs are subassemblies consisting of the active part and any other parts attached to, imported with or invoiced with the active parts of LPTs. The “active part” of the transformer consists of one or more of the following when attached to or otherwise assembled with one another: The steel core or shell, the windings, electrical insulation between the windings, the mechanical frame for an LPT.
The product definition encompasses all such LPTs regardless of name designation, including but not limited to step-up transformers, step-down transformers, autotransformers, interconnection transformers, voltage regulator transformers, rectifier transformers, and power rectifier transformers.
The LPTs subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 8504.23.0040,
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,
On August 23, 2011, we received comments from Hyundai and Hyosung concerning the scope of this investigation. In their submissions, both Hyundai and Hyosung request that the scope language be modified expressly to exclude spare parts when imported individually, or when imported with a complete LPT (whether assembled or unassembled) or with a subassembly, because they are not integral to the start-up or operation of an LPT.
On September 2, 2011, petitioners filed rebuttal comments regarding the scope comments by Hyundai and Hyosung. In their rebuttal comments, petitioners state that Hyundai and Hyosung failed to demonstrate the necessity for any exclusionary language and that the scope language published in the Department's
We preliminarily find that the language of the scope of the order is clear and does not require amendment.
We have considered the comments that were submitted by the interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the “Scope of Investigation” section, above, and sold in Korea during the period of investigation are considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on the following 18 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Number of phases; (2) maximum MVA rating; (3) transformer technology; (4) high line voltage; (5) high voltage winding basic insulation level; (6) number of windings in transformer; (7) type of tap changer and percentage regulation; (8) low line voltage; (9) impedance at maximum MVA rating; (10) type of core steel; (11) type of transformer; (12) low voltage winding basic insulation level; (13) load loss at maximum MVA rating; (14) no-load loss; (15) cooling class designation; (16) overload requirement; (17) decibel rating; and (18) frequency. We compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above, which were made in the ordinary course of trade. Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. Additionally, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.
In this case, Hyosung argued that the date of sale should be the purchase order date.
Since that time, petitioners have raised concerns about the reported date of sale, arguing that we should “rely on the
For the purposes of this preliminary determination, we are using the purchase order date as the date of sale because record evidence currently demonstrates that this date best reflects the date upon which the material terms of sale were established. However, we are excluding from our analysis those sales which are known to be based on long term contracts executed prior to the POI because it is unclear whether the material terms of these sales were set during the POI. We will further examine whether there is other information that denotes a more appropriate date of sale as it is unclear from the record whether the material terms of these sales were set prior to the POI. We intend to issue one final supplemental questionnaire to each respondent regarding the date of sale issue.
To determine whether respondents' sales of large power transformers from Korea to the United States were made at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to normal value (NV) or constructed value, as appropriate and as described in the “Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average CEPs to POI weighted-average NVs or constructed values, as appropriate.
For the price to the United States, we used CEP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated CEP for those sales where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the sale to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject merchandise.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP where the record established that sales made by Hyundai and Hyosung were made in the United States after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for certain billing adjustments, early payment discounts, quantity discounts, and certain other discounts, including rebates. We also made further deductions to price for certain movement expenses where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, inland insurance, foreign brokerage, U.S. inland freight, certain other transportation expenses, U.S. customs duties and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made additional adjustments to CEP for commissions, credit expenses, bank charges, direct selling expenses associated with costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling expenses in the United States associated with economic activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. For a detailed discussion of these adjustments,
In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for certain movement expenses, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage, foreign inland insurance, U.S. inland freight, international freight, marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made additional adjustments to CEP for commissions, credit expenses, warranty expenses, inventory carrying costs incurred in Korea, direct selling expenses associated with costs incurred in the United States (
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (
Pursuant to its regulations, the Department may use prices from sales made to affiliated parties if the price is comparable to the price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product to a non-affiliate.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer.
In this investigation, we obtained information from Hyundai and Hyosung regarding the marketing stages involved by both parties making their reported home market and U.S. market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondents and/or their affiliates for each channel of distribution.
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of the company-specific LOT findings for this preliminary determination,
Based on the Department's analysis of the Petitioners' allegation, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Hyosung had sales that were made at prices below their COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act.
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the COP data submitted by respondents except where noted below. Based on the review of record evidence, respondents did not appear to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing during the period of investigation. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
We reclassified certain selling, G&A and other non-operating income and expense items that appeared not to be properly classified by Hyosung and revised Hyosung's calculation of the G&A expense ratio. For additional details,
We excluded unconsolidated foreign exchange gains and losses from Hyundai's G&A expenses and included the corresponding consolidated gains and losses in the calculation of the financial expense ratio according to our normal practice. We disallowed the offset to Hyundai's G&A expense for certain miscellaneous income items. For additional details,
With respect to Hyosung, on a product-specific basis, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices were net of billing adjustments, movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses, where appropriate.
Section 773(b)(1) provides that where sales made at less than the COP “have been made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities” and “were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time” the Department may disregard such sales when calculating
Therefore, for Hyosung, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
We calculated NV for Hyundai and Hyosung based on the reported packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, early payment and certain other discounts, other revenues received, inland freight and insurance, and warehousing expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b), we made, where appropriate, circumstance-of-sale adjustments (
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for the foreign-like product and subject merchandise.
Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of Hyundai's and Hyosung's respective material and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the “Cost of Production Analysis” section of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415(a) based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information relied upon in making our final determination for Hyundai and Hyosung.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of large power transformers from Korea that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “All Others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters, who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that requests by
On December 22, 2011, and January 5, 2012, Hyosung and Hyundai, respectively, requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) and extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-month period. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producers/exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting this request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the USITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the USITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of large power transformers from Korea are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the last verification report in this proceeding.
In accordance with section 774(1) of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of nominations.
NOAA is soliciting nominations for two individuals to serve as United States Commissioners to the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). This action is necessary to ensure that the interests of the United States and all of its stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fishery are adequately represented. The intended effect of this action is to improve transparency and stakeholder participation in the nomination process.
Nominations must be received by March 19, 2012.
Nominations for U.S. Commissioners to the IPHC should be made in writing to Mr. Patrick E. Moran, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Nominations can also be sent via fax (301-713-2313) or email (
Mr. Patrick E. Moran, (301) 427-8370.
The IPHC is a bilateral regional fishery management organization established pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The Convention was signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979. The Convention's central objective is to develop the stocks of Pacific halibut in waters off the west coasts of Canada and the United States to levels that will permit the optimum yield from the Pacific halibut fishery
Section 773a of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773a) requires that the United States be represented on the IPHC by three U.S. Commissioners. U.S. Commissioners are appointed for a term not to exceed 2 years, but are eligible for reappointment. Of the Commissioners:
(1) One must be an official of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(2) two must be knowledgeable or experienced concerning the Northern Pacific halibut fishery; of these, one must be a resident of Alaska and the other shall be a nonresident of Alaska. Of the three commissioners described in paragraphs (1) and (2), one must also be a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
(3) Commissioners who are not Federal employees are not considered to be Federal employees except for the purposes of injury compensation or tort claims liability as provided in section 8101
In their official IPHC duties, Commissioners represent the interests of the United States and all of its stakeholders in the Pacific halibut fishery. These duties require a modest amount of travel (typically two or three trips per year lasting less than a week), and travel expenses are paid by the U.S. Department of State. Commissioners receive no compensation for their services.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is currently accepting nominations for two U.S. Commissioners for the IPHC who are not officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Successful nominees will be considered for appointment by the President and (pending Presidential action) interim designation by the Department of State.
Nomination packages should provide details of an individual's knowledge and experience in the Pacific halibut fishery. Examples of such knowledge and/or experience could include (but are not limited to) such activities as: Participation in commercial, tribal, Community Development Quota (CDQ) and/or sport and charterboat halibut fishing operations; participation in halibut processing operations; and participation in Pacific halibut management activities.
Nomination packages should document an individual's qualifications and state of residence. Self-nominations are acceptable, and current and former IPHC Commissioners are eligible for reappointment. Résumés, curriculum vitae, and/or letters of recommendation are useful but not required. Nomination packages will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by officials in the Department of Commerce who are familiar with the duties and responsibilities of IPHC Commissioners; evaluations will consider the aggregate of an individual's prior experience and knowledge of the Pacific halibut fishery, residency requirements, and any letters of recommendation provided. Nominees will be notified of their status (including rejection or approval) and any need for further information once the nomination process is complete.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold meetings of its: Law Enforcement Advisory Panel; Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee; Law Enforcement Committee; Spiny Lobster Committee; Ecosystem-Based Management Committee; King and Spanish Mackerel Committee; Shrimp Committee; Information and Education Committee; Executive Finance Committee; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) Committee; Golden Crab Committee; Catch Shares Committee; Snapper Grouper Committee; and a meeting of the Full Council. The Council will take action as necessary.
The Council will hold an informal public question and answer session regarding agenda items and a public comment session. See
The Council meeting will be held March 5-9, 2012. See
The meeting will be held at the Savannah Hilton DeSoto, 15 East Liberty Street, Savannah, GA 31401; telephone: (1-877) 280-0751 or (912) 232-9000; fax: (912) 232-6018. Copies of documents are available from Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free at (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (AP) will receive an update on recent amendments and review and develop comments on the following amendments: Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B (golden tilefish); Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 12 (framework action to adjust the golden tilefish Annual Catch Limit (ACL), Optimum Yield (OY) and Annual Catch Target (ACT) in the fishery); Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3; Snapper Grouper Amendment 20B (wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program modifications); Spiny Lobster Amendment 11 (weather-related fishery closures and a revised Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) for pink shrimp); and Golden Crab Amendment 6 (catch share program for the commercial fishery). The AP will also begin the process for the 2011 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year award.
Concurrent Session.
The Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee will discuss the joint South Atlantic/Gulf Council dealer permits and review commercial and for-hire vessel reporting requirements in the South Atlantic.
The Law Enforcement Committee will receive a report from the Law Enforcement AP and discuss other issues as appropriate.
The Spiny Lobster Committee will receive an overview of Spiny Lobster Amendment 11, which includes measures to help protect threatened/endangered species. These measures include area closures for the commercial trap fishery to protect corals and gear marking requirements for trap lines. The Committee will also review public hearing comments and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) comments and modify Amendment 11 as appropriate. The Committee will provide recommendations to Council.
The Ecosystem-Based Management Committee will receive updates on: The status of catches versus quota for octocorals; the status of Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 2; the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Strategic Plan; and public scoping comments for Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 3 (CE-BA3). The Committee will develop recommendations for CE-BA3, give an update on ecosystem activities, and provide direction to staff.
The King and Spanish Mackerel Committee will receive updates on the status of catches versus quotas for species under quota management and the status of Mackerel Amendment 18, which establishes ACLs and Accountability Measures (AMs) for mackerel and cobia. The Committee will also receive a presentation on king mackerel tournament sales of fish and will select items to include in the joint South Atlantic and Gulf Mackerel Amendments 20 and 21. The Committee will provide guidance to staff and recommendations to Council.
The Shrimp Committee will review scoping comments for Shrimp Amendment 9, which would expedite the closure process during severe cold events in order to protect overwintering shrimp populations and would revise the MSST proxy for pink shrimp. The Committee will take action as appropriate and provide guidance to staff.
The Information and Education Committee will review the recommendations from the Snapper Grouper AP relating to outreach and will receive presentations on the use of social media tools. Additionally, the Committee will receive a review of the recent public hearing and scoping meetings and discuss options for future meetings. The Committee will provide recommendations as appropriate.
The Executive Finance Committee will: Receive a report on the Council Year (CY) 2012 Council expenditures; review and approve the draft CY2012 Council activities schedule and budget; and review the President's 2013 budget proposal.
The SEDAR Committee will receive an overview of SEDAR activities and review SEDAR assessment priorities. The Committee will also receive a presentation on the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Electronic Logbook Pilot Study, a report on recent MRIP workshops and a report on revised MRIP catch estimates. The Committee will discuss and develop recommendations for the next SEDAR Steering Committee meeting.
The Golden Crab Committee will review: The status of commercial catches versus quotas (amount landed to date); public hearing comments on Golden Crab Amendment 6; Golden Crab AP recommendations; and staff modifications to the amendment. The Committee will provide direction to staff and recommendations to the Council for approving the amendment for Secretarial review and approval.
There will be an informal public question and answer session with the NMFS Regional Administrator and the Council Chairman on March 7, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
The Catch Shares Committee will receive a presentation on a voluntary catch share program and take action as appropriate.
The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive updates on the status of catches versus quotas for species under quota management and address any necessary actions as the result of these reports. The Committee will receive a report on Oculina research activities and updates on the status of amendments under review, including: Regulatory Amendment 11, which proposes elimination of the current 240′ restriction on the harvest of some deepwater species within the snapper grouper management unit; the Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment, which establishes ACL and AM for species that are not currently undergoing overfishing; Amendment 24 establishing a rebuilding plan for red grouper; Amendment 18A addressing black sea bass management and data collection; and Amendment 20A pertaining to the wreckfish ITQ program.
The Committee will also review Amendment 18B that includes measures to limit participation in the commercial golden tilefish fishery. The Committee will receive a summary of comments from recent public hearings, choose preferred alternatives for actions, modify the amendment as appropriate and provide recommendations to the Council. Additionally, the Committee will receive an overview of Regulatory Amendment 12 regarding a framework action to adjust the golden tilefish ACL, OY and ACT based on the most recent stock assessment. The Committee will choose preferred alternatives and modify the amendment as appropriate. The Committee will discuss limiting the number of black sea bass commercial trips, receive an overview of Amendment 20B addressing modifications to the wreckfish ITQ program, discuss relevant actions in CE-BA3, receive a presentation on National Marine Protected Areas (MPA), and provide recommendations as appropriate.
A public comment session will be held on March 8, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m., on Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B, Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 11, Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 12 (framework action adjusting the golden tilefish ACL), Golden Crab Amendment 6, and Spiny Lobster Amendment 11, followed by comment on any other item on the agenda.
From 8:30 a.m. until 8:45 a.m., the Council will call the meeting to order, adopt the agenda, and approve the December 2011 meeting minutes.
From 8:45 a.m. until 9 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Ad Hoc Data Collection Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9 a.m. until 9:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Law Enforcement Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9:15 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee, approve Spiny Lobster Amendment 11 for formal Secretarial review and approval, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9:30 a.m. until 9:45 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 9:45 a.m. until 10 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the King and Spanish Mackerel Committee, approve Mackerel Amendments 20 and 21 for public scoping, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 10 a.m. until 10:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Shrimp Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 10:15 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Information and Education Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 10:30 a.m. until 10:45 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Executive Finance Committee, approve the CY2012 activities schedule and budget, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 10:45 a.m. until 11 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the SEDAR Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11 a.m. until 11:15 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Golden Crab Committee, approve Golden Crab Amendment 6 for formal Secretarial review and approval, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11:15 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Catch Shares Committee, consider recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 11:30 a.m. until 12 noon, the Council will receive a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee, approve Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B and Regulatory Amendment 12 for formal Secretarial review and approval, consider other recommendations and take action as appropriate.
From 12 noon until 1:30 p.m., the Council will receive status reports from the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Science Center, review and develop recommendations on Experimental Fishing Permits as necessary, review agency and liaison reports, and discuss other business, including upcoming meetings.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal final Council action during these meetings. 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 Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda is subject to change.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35).
Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through the Information Collection Review page at
Paper copies can be obtained by:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before March 19, 2012 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the National Security Education Board. The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.
March 15, 2012, from 9 a.m.-2 p.m.
Defense Language and National Security Education Office, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Arlington, VA 22209.
Ms. Alison Patz, Program Analyst, Defense Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO), 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209-2248; (703) 696-1991. Electronic mail address:
The National Security Education Board Members meeting is open to the public. The public is afforded the opportunity to submit written statements associated with DLNSEO.
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
• Determine whether to provide precious metals as Government-furnished material;
• Determine an entity's eligibility for award of a contract due to ownership or control by the government of a terrorist country;
• Determine an entity's eligibility for award of a contract under a national security program due to ownership or control by a foreign government;
• Determine whether there is a compelling reason for a contractor to enter into a subcontract in excess of $30,000 with a firm, or subsidiary of a firm, that is identified in the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement as being ineligible for award of Defense subcontracts because it is owned or controlled by the government of a terrorist country;
• Evaluate claims of indemnification for losses or damages occurring under a research and development contract; and
• Keep track of radio frequencies on electronic equipment under research and development contracts so that the user does not override or interfere with the use of that frequency by another user.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For 36-month projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2009 under the Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program (NHCTEP), CFDA Number: 84.259A, the Secretary proposes to waive the regulation that restricts project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also proposes to extend the project period of these grants for an additional 12 months. This would enable the eight current NHCTEP grantees to seek FY 2012 continuation awards for project periods through FY 2013. Further, the waiver and extension, as proposed, would mean that we would not announce new awards in FY 2012.
We must receive your comments on or before March 19, 2012.
Submit all comments on this notice to Linda Mayo, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following address:
Linda Mayo by telephone at (202) 245-7792 or by email at:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. We are particularly interested in receiving comments on the potential impact that this proposed project period waiver and extension might have on NHCTEP and on potential applicants that would be eligible to apply for grant awards under any new NHCTEP notice inviting applications, should there be one.
Eligible applicants are:
(1) Community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians. For purposes of NHCTEP, a community-based organization means a public or private organization that provides career and technical education, or related services, to individuals in the Native Hawaiian community.
(2) Consortia of community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians (34 CFR 75.127).
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed waiver and extension in room 11075, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.
NHCTEP supports grants to community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians to plan, conduct, and administer career and technical education programs, as authorized by section 116(h) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act or Act) (20 U.S.C. 2326(h)). The eight current NHCTEP grantees were selected based on the March 24, 2009, notice inviting applications published in the
In FY 2009, the Department funded NHCTEP projects that are scheduled to end in FY 2012. For those projects, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirement of 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which generally prohibits project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also proposes to extend the current NHCTEP project period for 12 months. This would allow the eight current NHCTEP grantees to seek continuation awards in FY 2012 for project periods through FY 2013.
The Secretary makes these proposals because section 9 of the Perkins Act, which includes authorization for NHCTEP at section 116(h), authorizes appropriations for NHCTEP through FY 2012 (20 U.S.C. 2307). With the potential for changes in the authorizing legislation for NHCTEP beyond 2012, we do not believe it would be advisable to hold a new NHCTEP competition in FY 2012 for projects that may then operate for just one year. We are generally reluctant to announce a competition under which eligible entities would be expected to proceed through the application preparation and submission process while lacking critical information about the future of the program, and we do not think that it would be in the public interest to do so in this case.
Rather than holding a new competition in FY 2012, we believe that it would be in the public interest and preferable for NHCTEP for us to review requests for FY 2012 continuation awards from the eight current grantees selected based on the March 24, 2009, notice and to extend currently funded projects, for one more year, through FY 2013.
The extension of the project period and waiver of 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2) we are proposing would mean that: (1) Current grantees would be authorized to request and receive NHCTEP continuation awards in FY 2012 for project periods through FY 2013, (2) we would not announce a new competition or make new awards in FY 2012, (3) the March 24, 2009, notice would continue to govern current projects during the extension year, and (4) the eight currently-approved applications selected based on the March 24, 2009, notice would govern continuation activities.
The March 24, 2009, notice: (1) Established a project period of up to 36 months and reiterated that funding for multi-year awards would be dependent on a grantee meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253 (continuation of a multi-year project after the first budget period); (2) explained the requirements of the program; (3) described the evaluation and reporting requirements; and (4) established the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators for NHCTEP.
With this proposed extension of the project period and waiver of 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), we propose to extend the project period of the eight current NHCTEP grantees that received grants under the FY 2009 competition for one additional year through FY 2013 with FY 2012 funds Congress has appropriated under the current statutory authority. If the waiver of 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2) that we propose in this notice is announced by us in a final notice, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for current NHCTEP grantees and the requirements in section 75.253 of EDGAR would apply to any continuation awards sought by current NHCTEP grantees.
If we announce this proposed waiver and extension as final, we will make decisions regarding annual continuation awards based on grantee program narratives, budgets and budget
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension and the activities required to support additional year of funding would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities that would be affected by this proposed waiver and extension are the eight currently-funded NHCTEP grantees.
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these NHCTEP entities because the proposed waiver and extension impose minimal compliance costs to extend projects already in existence, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This notice of proposed waiver and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
The NHCTEP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 2326(h).
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For 60-month projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2007 under the Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP), the Secretary proposes to waive the regulations that generally restrict project periods to 60 months and that restrict project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also proposes to extend the current NACTEP project periods through FY 2013. These proposed waivers and extension of the project period would enable the 30 current NACTEP grantees to request and continue to receive Federal funding beyond the 60-month limitation contained in the Department's regulations. Further, the waivers and extension, as proposed, would mean that we would not announce new awards in FY 2012.
We must receive your comments on or before March 19, 2012.
Submit all comments on this notice to Gwen Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 11076, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241; or Linda Mayo, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11075, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use one of the following addresses:
Gwen Washington, by telephone: (202) 245-7790, or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Eligible applicants for NACTEP are:
(a) Federally-recognized Indian tribes.
(b) Tribal organizations.
(c) Alaska Native entities.
(d) Bureau-funded schools,
(e) Consortia of one or more eligible tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, or eligible Bureau-funded schools.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed waivers and extension in room 11076 or room 11075, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.
Current NACTEP grantees, selected based on the March 23, 2007, NACTEP notice inviting applications published in the
The Secretary makes these proposals because section 9 of the Perkins Act authorizes appropriations for activities under section 116 of the Act through FY 2012 (20 U.S.C. 2307). With the potential for changes in the authorizing legislation for NACTEP beyond 2012, we do not believe it would be advisable to hold a new competition for multi-year awards under NACTEP in FY 2012 for projects that may then operate for just one year. We are generally reluctant to announce a competition under which eligible entities would be expected to proceed through the application process while lacking critical information about the future of the program, and we do not think that it would be in the public interest to do so in this case.
Rather than holding a new competition in FY 2012, we believe that it would be in the public interest and preferable for NACTEP for us to review requests for FY 2012 continuation awards from the 30 current grantees selected based on the March 23, 2007, notice and to extend currently funded projects, for one more year, through FY 2013. In lieu of announcing a new competition for this program in 2012, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirement in 34 CFR 75.250, which limits project periods to 60 months, and in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which restricts project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds.
With these proposed waivers and extension of the project period, currently-funded NACTEP grantees selected based on the March 23, 2007, notice inviting applications could be continued through the FY 2013 budget and project period and we would not announce a new NACTEP competition in 2012.
If these proposed waivers and extension of the project period are announced by us in a final notice, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for current NACTEP grantees selected based on the March 23, 2007, notice inviting applications and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation awards sought by current NACTEP grantees. If we announce these waivers and extension as final, we will base our decisions regarding continuation awards on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports submitted by current grantees, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253. Any activities to be carried out during the year of the continuation award would have to be consistent with, or be a logical extension of, the scope, goals, and objectives of each grantee's application as approved in the 2007 NACTEP competition. If we publish these proposed waivers and extension as final, we would award continuation grants based on information provided to us by each grantee, indicating that it is making substantial progress performing its NACTEP grant activities.
The proposed extension of the project period and waivers of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(c)(2) would not exempt the current NACTEP grantees from the appropriation account-closing provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), nor would they extend the availability of funds previously awarded to current NACTEP grantees. As a result of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), appropriations available for a limited period may be used for payment of valid obligations for only five years after the expiration of their period of availability for Federal obligation. After that time, the unexpended balance of those funds is canceled and returned to the U.S. Treasury Department and is unavailable for restoration for any purpose (31 U.S.C. 1552(b)).
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waivers and extension would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed waivers and extension are the 30 grantees selected based on the March 23, 2007, notice currently receiving Federal funds.
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waivers and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the proposed waivers and extension impose minimal compliance costs to extend projects already in existence, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This notice of proposed waivers and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
The NACTEP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 2326(a) through (g).
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
For 60-month projects funded in fiscal year (FY) 2007 under the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions Program (TCPCTIP), the Secretary proposes to waive the regulations that generally limit project periods to 60 months and that restrict project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also proposes to extend the project period for current TCPCTIP grantees through FY 2013, or longer, if Congress continues to appropriate funds under the existing program authority. The proposed waivers and extension would enable the two current TCPCTIP grantees to request and continue to receive Federal funding beyond the 60-month limitation contained in the Department's regulations, so long as the grantees are meeting the TCPCTIP requirements. Further, the waivers and extension, as proposed, would mean that we would not announce a new competition in FY 2012 or make new awards in that year, or in future years, if Congress continues to appropriate funds under the existing program authority.
We must receive your comments on or before March 19, 2012.
Submit all comments on this notice to Gwen Washington, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 11076, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241.
If you prefer to send your comments by email, use the following address:
Gwen Washington. Telephone: (202) 245-7792, or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Eligible applicants for TCPCTIP are tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions that do not receive Federal support under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed waivers and extension for TCPCTIP in room 11076, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week, except Federal holidays.
Current TCPCTIP grantees, selected based on the May 15, 2007, TCPCTIP notice inviting applications published in the
The project period for the two TCPCTIP grantees is scheduled to end in FY 2012. For these projects, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirements of 34 CFR 75.250 and 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which limit project periods to 60 months and restrict project period extensions that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. The Secretary also proposes to extend the project period for the two current TCPCTIP grantees through FY 2013, or longer, if Congress continues to appropriate funds under the existing program authority. The proposed waivers and extension would enable the two current TCPCTIP grantees to request and continue to receive Federal funds beyond the 60-month limitation set by 34 CFR 75.250.
The Secretary makes these proposals because section 117(i) of the Perkins Act authorizes appropriations for activities under section 117 of the Act, through FY 2012 (20 U.S.C. 2327(i)). With the potential for changes in the authorizing legislation for the TCPCTIP beyond 2012, we do not believe it would be advisable to hold a new TCPCTIP competition in FY 2012 for projects that may then operate for just one year. We are generally reluctant to announce a competition under which eligible entities would be expected to proceed through the application process while lacking critical information about the future of the program, and we do not think that it would be in the public interest to do so in this case.
Rather than holding a new competition in FY 2012, we believe that it is in the public interest and preferable for TCPCTIP for us to review requests for continuation awards from the two grantees based on the May 15, 2007, notice and extend the currently funded projects through FY 2013, or longer, if Congress continues to appropriate funds for TCPCTIP under the existing program authority. In lieu of announcing new competitions for TCPCTIP in FY 2012, the Secretary proposes to waive the requirement in 34 CFR 75.250, which limits project periods to 60 months, and in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which restricts project period extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds.
With these proposed waivers and extension, current TCPCTIP grantees selected based on the May 15, 2007, notice inviting applications could be continued at least through the FY 2013 budget and project periods, or longer, if Congress continues to appropriate funds for TCPCTIP under the existing program authority.
If these proposed waivers and extension are announced by us in a final notice, the requirements applicable to continuation awards for current TCPCTIP grantees selected based on the May 15, 2007, notice inviting applications and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253 would apply to any continuation awards sought by current TCPCTIP grantees. If we announce these proposed waivers and extension as final, we will base our decisions regarding annual continuation awards on the program narratives, budgets, budget narratives, and program performance reports, submitted by current grantees, and the requirements in 34 CFR 75.253. Any activities to be carried out during the year or years of continuation awards would have to be
The proposed extension of the project period and waivers of 34 CFR 75.250 and 75.261(c)(2) would not exempt the current TCPCTIP grantees from the appropriation account-closing provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), nor would they extend the availability of funds previously awarded to current TCPCTIP grantees. As a result of 31 U.S.C. 1552(a), appropriations available for a limited period may be used for payment of valid obligations for only five years after the expiration of their period of availability for Federal obligation. After that time, the unexpended balance of those funds is canceled and returned to the U.S. Treasury Department and is unavailable for restoration for any purpose (31 U.S.C. 1552(b)).
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waivers and extension would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed waivers and extension are the two grantees selected based on the May 15, 2007, notice currently receiving Federal funds.
The Secretary certifies that the proposed waivers and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the proposed waivers and extension impose minimal compliance costs to extend projects already in existence, and the activities required to support the additional year or years of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.
This notice of proposed waivers and extension does not contain any information collection requirements.
The TCPCTIP is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 2327.
Department of Energy, Office of Science.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Friday, March 9, 2012, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852, (301) 822-9200.
Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-0536
Department of Energy, DoE.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 6 p.m.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information,1 Science.gov Way,Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 576-0956 or email:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-550, Oil Pipeline Rates: Tariff Filings, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by March 19, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0089, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-2-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
18 CFR Parts 341-348 specifies the filing requirements for proposed oil pipeline rates. The data that oil pipelines file is the basis for Commission analyses of the rates they plan to charge to transport crude oil and petroleum products. The Commission uses its analyses: (1) To determine if the proposed charges result in just and reasonable rates for the oil pipeline's transportation services and (2) to help the Commission decide whether it should suspend, accept or reject the proposed rates.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $385,499.24 [5,632 hours ÷ 2,080
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
The existing project works consists of the following:
The London/Marmet Project consists of two developments. The existing London Development utilizes the head created by the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) 26-foot-high London Dam located at river mile (RM) 82.8 on the Kanawha River and consists of: (1) A forebay area protected by a log boom; (2) screened intake structures; (3) a concrete powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 14.4 megawatts (MW); (4) a tailrace 420 feet long; (5) a substation containing two, three-phase transformers and two auxiliary transformers; (6) two, 0.38-mile-long, 46-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines; and (7) other appurtenances. The development generates about 84,048 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually.
The existing Marmet Development utilizes the head created by the Corps' 34-foot-high Marmet Dam located at RM 67.7 on the Kanawha River and consists of: (1) A forebay area protected by a log boom; (2) screened intake structures; (3) a concrete powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 14.4 MW; (4) a tailrace 450 feet long; (5) a substation containing two, three-phase transformers and two auxiliary transformers; (6) two, 0.78-mile-long, 46-kV transmission lines; and (7) other appurtenances. The development generates about 82,302 MWh annually.
The London/Marmet Project has a total installed capacity of 28.8 MW and generates about 166,350 MWh annually.
The existing Winfield Project utilizes the head created by the Corps' 38-foot-high Winfield Dam located at RM 31.1 on the Kanawha River and consists of: (1) A forebay area protected by a 410-foot-long log boom; (2) screened intake structures; (3) a concrete powerhouse containing three turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 14.76 MW; (4) a tailrace 410 feet long; (5) a substation containing a generator step-up bank of three transformers and three auxiliary transformers; (6) a 3.7-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line; and (7) other appurtenances. The project generates about 114,090 MWh annually.
The above hydroelectric facilities' operation is synchronized with the operation of the Corps' locks at each dam. The developments at each of the two projects operate within allowable pool elevation limits as established by the Corps. The London pool elevation is allowed to fluctuate between 611.0 feet and 614.0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD). The Marmet pool elevation is allowed to fluctuate between 589.7 feet and 590.0 feet NGVD. The Winfield pool elevation is allowed to fluctuate between 565.8 feet and 566.0 feet NGVD. All three pools can be drawn down at a maximum rate of 0.5 feet per hour. When stream flow exceeds the maximum turbine discharge, the responsibility for control of the pool elevations passes to the Corps' personnel and the projects operate in run-of-release mode.
Appalachian is proposing to modify the maximum pool elevation limit at the London Development from 614.0 feet to 613.7 feet NGVD.
You may also register online at
The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on December 23, 2011. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC provided public notice of its request on December 22, 2011. In a letter dated January 30, 2012, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 pm Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5 pm Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 pm Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 pm Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 pm Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that on February 8, 2012, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2006), and Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2011), Pioneer Transmission, LLC (Pioneer) filed a formal complaint against Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) and Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) alleging that (1) NIPSCO does not have ownership and investment rights to any of the 765kV investment associated with the segment of the Pioneer project that MISO recently included in its 2011 regional transmission expansion plan, and (2) Pioneer should be allowed to become a party to the MISO Transmission Owners Agreement immediately and begin recovering costs (CWIP) in accordance with FERC's order approving transmission rate incentives for Pioneer.
Pioneer certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for NIPSCO and MISO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
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 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. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
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 during the month of January 2012, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
Take notice that on February 8, 2012, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities filed a Confidentiality Certification as required by section 18.17.4 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Physical Systems Integration, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Lilabell Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Gas & Electric (NJ), LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Gas & Electric (OH), LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Gas & Electric (NY), LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive emailnotification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Gas & Electric (IL), LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of AP Gas & Electric (MD), LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is February 29, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
a.
b.
c.
d. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please call Dianne Rodman by February 16, 2012, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate either in person or by phone. Please call Tom Dean at (202) 502-6041 by Wednesday, March 14, 2012, to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
f. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
g. A summary of the teleconference will be placed in the public record for the project.
On March 25, 2011, Reliable Storage 1 LLC filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower near the town of Monterey, in Putnam County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed pumped storage project would consist of the following: (1) A 70-foot-high, 7,500-foot-long earth embankment dam; (2) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 100 acres and an 7,100 acre-foot storage capacity; (3) a 120-foot-high, 920-foot-long earth embankment dam creating; (4) a lower reservoir with a surface area of 220 acres and an 7,300 acre-foot storage capacity; (5) one 30-foot-diameter, 3,200-foot-long penstock; (6) a bifurcation to three penstocks each 16-foot-diameter, and 100-foot-long; (7) an underground powerhouse/pumping station containing three pump/generating units with a total generating capacity of 600 megawatts; (8) a 30-foot-diameter, 700-foot-long tailrace tunnel; (9) a 24-foot-diameter, 2,000-foot-long access tunnel; (10) a substation; (11) a 1.4-mile-long, 500 kV transmission line to an existing distribution line; and (12) a 6,300-foot-long access road. The proposed project would have an average annual generation of 1,500,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications 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, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in Room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received three preliminary permit applications deemed filed on April 1, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on August 6, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9 a.m. (Eastern Time), the Secretary of the Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided in section 4.37 of its regulations.
The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing the results of the drawing.
Take notice that on January 31, 2012, Southwest Gas Storage Company (Southwest), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.213, and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southwest's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP99-230-000, to construct, replace, and abandon facilities at Southwest's Howell storage field in Livingston County, Michigan. Specifically, Southwest proposes to (1) drill dual horizontal wellbore extensions in two injection/withdrawal wells; (2) convert three injection/withdrawal wells to observation wells; (3) replace pipe associated with four storage laterals; and (4) abandon in place three storage laterals, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Stephen Veatch, Senior Director of Certificates and Tariffs, Southwest Gas Storage Company, 501 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056 or telephone (713) 989-2024 or fax (713) 989-1158 or by email
Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
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 via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site (
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0034, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sally Rand, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 6207J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9739; fax number: 202-343-2202; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0034, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 60 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects that effective in 2010, all producers of primary aluminum are subject to mandatory reporting under EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GGRP). Emissions data collection and reporting efforts are no longer components of the voluntary activities covered by this information collection request. Consequently, the overall burden has decreased from 90 hours to 30 hours with the corresponding decrease in the previously estimated reporting burden.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; fax number: (202) 564-2620; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it 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 burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
On November 3, 2008 (73 FR 64452), EPA has revised some of the requirements in 40 CFR part 355, specifically, the requirements related to emergency planning notification. EPA is now requiring facilities to notify their LEPC within 30 days of any changes occurring at the facility that may be relevant to emergency planning. This revision should not impose any additional burden on facilities subject to emergency planning. Prior to the November 3, 2008 final rule, facilities were required to provide any changes to the LEPC promptly. This final rule now requires facilities to provide any changes within 30 days. Other revisions finalized on November 3, 2008 do not impose any burden on facilities subject to Section 302 and 304 requirements.
The average burden for emergency planning activities is 21 hours per plan for LEPCs, and 16 hours per plan for SERCs. Each SERC and LEPC is also estimated to incur an annual record keeping burden of 10 hours. The total annual burden to LEPCs and SERCs is 106,856 hours at a cost of $4.2 million.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2003-0052, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, Mail code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; fax number: (202) 564-2625; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052 which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) 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;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Decision.
EPA has granted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) its request for a waiver of preemption and authorization to adopt and enforce California's Truck Idling Requirements. CARB's Truck Idling Requirements apply to new California-certified 2008 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines in heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds, and to in-use diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds that are equipped with sleeper berths.
Petitions for review must be filed by April 16, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0317. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, and public comments, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver
Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2800. Email:
By letter dated May 9, 2008, CARB informed EPA that it had adopted its Truck Idling Requirements, and requested that EPA confirm that certain provisions of the requirements are not preempted by sections 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act); certain provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of the Act;
CARB's Truck Idling Requirements consist of three elements: (1) “New engine requirements” that require new California-certified 2008 and subsequent model year on-road diesel engines in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (
Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act preempts states and local governments from setting emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines; it provides:
No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No state shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.
The second sentence of section 209(a) of the Act prevents states from requiring, “certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.” However, once EPA has granted California a waiver of section 209(a)'s preemption for emission standards and/or accompanying enforcement procedures, California may then require other such conditions precedent.
In contrast to section 209(a)'s preemption of state adoption of standards controlling emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, section 209(d) of the Act explicitly preserves states' ability to regulate vehicles and engines in use. Section 209(d) provides that despite section 209(a)'s preemption, “Nothing in this part shall preclude or deny to any State or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of registered or licensed motor vehicles.”
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the Administrator to grant California authorization to enforce its own
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to authorize the state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
If California amends regulations that were previously granted a waiver of preemption, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within the scope of the previously granted waiver. Such within-the-scope amendments are permissible without a full waiver review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior waivers.
In
The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be `clear and compelling evidence' to show that proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.
With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although
Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As found in
Upon review of CARB's request, EPA invited public comment on the entire request, including but not limited to the following issues.
First, we asked whether we should consider CARB's new engine requirements as non-preempted operational controls, or as conditions precedent. In the alternative, should we determine that CARB's new engine requirements must be treated as standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying enforcement procedures, we asked whether they be subject to and meet the criteria for EPA to confirm that they are within-the-scope of EPA's waiver for new heavy-duty diesel engines for 2007 and subsequent model years. To the extent the new engine requirements should be treated as standards relating to the control of emissions or accompanying enforcement procedures and require a full waiver from EPA, we asked whether the requirements meet the full waiver criteria.
Second, we asked whether CARB's sleeper truck requirements properly should be considered an operational control and thus not preempted by section 209 of the Act. To the extent that CARB's sleeper truck requirements should be treated as standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or engines or accompanying enforcement procedures and require a full waiver from EPA, we sought comment on whether the requirements meet the criteria for a full waiver.
Third, with respect to CARB's alternative technology requirements, EPA sought comment on the following specific questions: (1) Does CARB's requirement that an APS using an internal combustion engine be certified to meet either California off-road or federal nonroad emission standards and test procedures meet the requirements for finding that it is within-the-scope of the authorization EPA issued for new nonroad engine standards, thus not requiring a full authorization?;
As called out by those specific questions, EPA sought threshold input on whether to treat various elements of CARB's Truck Idling Requirements as conditions precedent, within the scope of previous waivers and authorizations, not preempted by section 209, or in need of a full waiver or authorization. We also sought substantive comment on whether the various elements of CARB's Truck Idling Requirements meet the applicable criteria for confirmation as conditions precedent, within the scope, non-preemption, and full waiver or authorization.
In response to EPA's July 27, 2010
ATA's comments specifically oppose California's “alternative technology requirements,” which establish in-use performance standards for HDDV operators who use alternative technologies (e.g., auxiliary power units) to supply power for truck cab or sleeper berth climate control and/or other on-board accessories that otherwise would have been generated by the continuous idling of the truck's main engine. ATA comments that those requirements are not consistent with sections 202(a) and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act.
OOIDA's comments address issues it believes have been overlooked by EPA, including “CARB's delay in requesting EPA review of Truck Idling Requirements without waiting for an EPA determination; CARB's premature implementation and enforcement of those Requirements without waiting for an EPA determination; and CARB's failure to consider the potential adverse impact of these requirements on the health and welfare of the affected truck drivers.” OOIDA also suggested that the Truck Idling Requirements may be preempted by federal law other than the Clean Air Act. OOIDA also requested an additional forty-five days—until November 15, 2010—to fully evaluate a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
CARB submitted additional information in the form of supplemental comments to update its request in light of EPA's authorization of California's new nonroad compression-ignition regulations, and information regarding technological feasibility. CARB also responded to EPA's request for comments, and the comments EPA received from ATA and OOIDA. CARB's supplemental comments assert that ATA and OOIDA have failed to meet their burden of proof for a denial. CARB further requests that EPA grant California its requested waiver and authorizations to adopt and enforce its Truck Idling Requirements.
California's Truck Idling Requirements feature four general sets of requirements: Those applicable to
The new engine requirements imposed by California's Truck Idling Requirements establish two compliance options for new California certified 2008 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines installed in trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The first compliance option requires engine manufacturers to install a system that automatically shuts down the engine after five minutes of continuous idle operation. The second compliance option is an optional NO
CARB presents, first, that the new engine requirements are akin to operational controls on in-use vehicles and, accordingly, they are not preempted by Clean Air Act section 209(b). Alternatively, CARB argues that the new engine requirements are “other conditions precedent” to initial sale, titling, or registration that fall within the scope of the waiver of preemption EPA issued for California's 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine standards. Last, CARB argues that should EPA determine that the new engine requirements constitute standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicle engines, such requirements fall within the scope of previous waivers of preemption. Thus, EPA must first determine what type of control the California new engine requirements impose before proceeding with an analysis of whether California meets the necessary Clean Air Act requirements under section 209.
To address these issues, EPA asked the first set of questions in the July 27, 2010
EPA received no comments in response to the issues EPA raised for comment with respect to California's new engine requirements.
Despite CARB's contentions, EPA has determined that California's new engine requirements are standards relating to the control of emissions that require a full waiver of preemption from EPA. CARB believes that the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of “standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines” in
CARB alternatively requested that EPA evaluate California's new engine requirements by application of EPA's within-the-scope criteria. However, the new engine requirements impose an additional design requirement upon engine manufacturers, which is a “new issue” and cautions against application of the within-the-scope criteria. CARB believes its requirement that manufacturers include an engine shutdown system does not present a “new issue” because it “will only require manufacturers to perform minor reprogramming of the software incorporated in existing engine or vehicle computers, and will not require any modifications to hardware.”
Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. When evaluating California's protectiveness determination, EPA compares the stringency of the California and federal standards at issue in a given waiver request. That comparison is undertaken within the broader context of the previously waived California program, which relies upon protectiveness determinations that EPA previously found were not arbitrary and capricious.
When California adopted its Truck Idling Requirements, the CARB Board made its protectiveness finding in its Resolution 05-55.
No commenter expressed an opinion or presented any evidence suggesting that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in making its above-noted protectiveness findings. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that California was arbitrary and capricious in its findings that California's new engine requirements are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.
Under section 209(b)(1)(B) of the Act, EPA cannot grant a waiver if California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” To evaluate this criterion, EPA considers whether California needs a separate motor vehicle emissions program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
Over the past forty years, CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its motor vehicle emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary conditions in California.
Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA must deny a California waiver request if the Agency finds that California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act. The scope of EPA's review under this criterion is narrow. EPA has stated on many occasions that the determination is limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with federal test procedures. Previous waivers of federal preemption have stated that California's standards are not consistent with section 202(a) if there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures conflict,
California presents that its new engine requirements are currently technologically feasible, with appropriate consideration given to cost, and do not impose inconsistent certification requirements.
No commenter expressed any disagreement with these statements from CARB, and no commenter presented any evidence opposing CARB's assertions regarding technological feasibility, lead-time, and cost of compliance. Therefore, EPA is unable to find that California's new engine requirements are not technologically feasible within the
After a review of the information submitted by CARB and other parties to this proceeding, EPA finds that those opposing California's request have not met the burden of demonstrating that a waiver for California's new engine requirements should be denied based on any of the three statutory criteria of section 209(b)(1). For this reason, EPA finds that California's new engine requirements should receive a full waiver of preemption.
California's Truck Idling Requirements impose a new requirement on the operators of sleeper berth equipped heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Sleeper truck operators will now be required to manually shut off engines after five minutes of continuous idling. To address CARB's sleeper truck requirements, EPA asked the second set of questions in the July 27, 2010
California asserts that the sleeper truck requirements are an in-use operational control of motor vehicles and do not require a waiver of preemption. Since the sleeper truck requirements only apply to in-use motor vehicles, and Clean Air Act section 209(a) preemption only applies to new motor vehicles and engines, CARB asserts that section 209(a) preemption does not apply to these requirements. Additionally, CARB points towards section 209(d) of the Act, which states: “Nothing in this part shall preclude or deny to any State or political subdivision thereof the right otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use, operation, or movement of registered vehicles.” Read together, sections 209(a) and 209(d) make clear that operational controls, such as idling limits directed towards the operator of the vehicle, are not preempted and do not need a waiver of preemption pursuant to section 209(b). EPA agrees with this analysis and does not believe that in-use controls, such as idling limits, are preempted by section 209(a). Therefore, California's sleeper truck requirements do not require a waiver of preemption under section 209(b) of the Act.
OOIDA comments that the sleeper truck idling requirements will have an adverse effect on the health and welfare of drivers. This comment is inapplicable to EPA's analysis here, because as stated above, EPA has found that the sleeper truck requirements are not preempted under section 209(a). Therefore, EPA has no authority to evaluate California's sleeper truck requirements. To the extent this comment suggests that California's protectiveness determination for its alternative technology requirements was arbitrary and capricious, we have addressed that issue below.
CARB anticipated that truck operators would likely utilize alternative technologies to power truck cabins, sleeper berths, and/or other on-board accessories that previously would have been powered by the truck's main engine. Such alternative technologies include internal combustion engine powered alternative power sources (“APSs”) and fuel-fired heaters. To account for the increased particulate matter (PM) emissions that would be generated by inclusion of these alternative technologies on heavy-duty diesel vehicles, CARB developed alternative technology requirements. CARB's general alternative technology requirement is that internal combustion engines used in APSs must be certified to the California or federal nonroad emission standards and test procedures applicable to the fuel type and horsepower category of the engines. CARB also imposes specific requirements for diesel-fueled APSs, dependent upon model year. For 2007 and later model year heavy-duty diesel trucks, a diesel-fueled APS must comply with California or federal nonroad emission standards and one of three additional requirements: (1) Route their exhaust into the truck's exhaust system so that the APS's PM emissions are controlled by the truck's PM trap; or (2) be equipped with a level 3 verified PM control strategy (
With respect to CARB's alternative technology requirements, in the July 27, 2010
With respect to the threshold question EPA asked as to which waiver analysis to apply to CARB's APS requirements, EPA received no comments. CARB asserts that because its APS requirements are linked to preexisting federal or California standards and certification requirements, the new APS requirements are within the scope of the prior authorizations for these engines. However, EPA does not believe that a within-the-scope analysis is appropriate in this circumstance. In the past, EPA has reviewed amendments to previously waived or authorized California standards for a determination of whether those amendments were within the scope of the previously waived or authorized standards. Here though, the APS requirements as imposed by California's Truck Idling Requirements are not amendments, but new regulations. Even though the APS
Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the agency finds that CARB was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness determination in Resolution 05-55, finding that California's Truck Idling Requirements will not cause the California emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.
EPA received one comment challenging California's protectiveness determination with respect to the APS requirements. OOIDA comments that “in determining whether CARB's sleeper truck and alternative power source requirements should be approved, under any analysis, EPA should take care to fully consider and balance against the benefits to be gained by reducing emissions from idling sleeper trucks, the very real adverse impact such a requirement would have on the health and welfare of the operators of those trucks and negative effects on highway safety from truck operators not being properly rested.”
Therefore, based on the record before us, EPA finds that opponents of the authorization have not shown that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.
Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the agency finds that California “does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions * * *.” This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are necessary to meet such
Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).
To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, California's APS requirements must not apply to new motor vehicles or engines. California's APS requirements apply to nonroad engines, not new on-highway motor vehicles or engines. CARB presents that although the APS are used on on-highway heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines, they are auxiliary engines and are not used to propel motor vehicles or engines. CARB further states that because APS are regulated as nonroad engines, they fall within the regulatory definition of nonroad engine, and are, thus, consistent with section 209(a). No commenter presented otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis that California's APS requirements are not consistent with section 209(a).
To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act, California's APS requirements must not affect new farming or construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that APS engines are not used in locomotives and are not primarily used in farm and construction equipment vehicles. No commenter presented otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's request on the basis that California's APS requirements are not consistent with section 209(e)(1).
The requirement that California's standards be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures were not consistent. The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action is consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedure.
Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section 202(a) relates to technological feasibility.
With respect to the general APS requirements, CARB presents that the technological feasibility is readily apparent. CARB believes this because the general APS requirement is that the APS complies with the California or federal nonroad emission standards and test procedures applicable for its fuel type and power category. Therefore, EPA has already determined the technological feasibility for these standards, either in its own federal rulemaking or by authorizing the underlying California standards in a previous authorization.
With respect to the specific APS requirements for diesel APSs, CARB presents that each option is technologically feasible in the specified lead-time. Broadly, CARB asserts that “numerous technologies currently exist that can be used to comply with these requirements, including routing the exhaust from an APS into the exhaust system of the main engine, battery electric APSs, thermal energy storage systems, and on-shore electrical power infrastructures at truck stops.”
In its comments, OOIDA expresses concerns related to the cost of APSs on truck drivers. OOIDA believes that faced with the added expense of an APS, truck drivers will decide not to invest in APSs and “instead subject themselves to unhealthy and unsafe cab temperatures and conditions when hauling cargo in [California].”
EPA did not receive any other comments suggesting that CARB's standards and test procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently, based on the record, EPA cannot deny California's authorization based on technological infeasibility.
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.
CARB presents that none of the APS requirements pose any inconsistency as between California and federal test procedures. First, CARB asserts that its general APS requirements do not modify the test procedures specified for certifying a California or federal nonroad engine.
EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's APS requirements pose a test procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based on this criterion.
In its comments, ATA asserts that because California's APS requirements (those specific to diesel APSs on 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel vehicles) apply to new diesel engines, they circumvent the consistency criteria of the Clean Air Act. ATA does not reference any of the sections of the Act which EPA has historically evaluated (
ATA also contends that EPA cannot grant a new authorization for California's APS requirements (again, those specific to diesel APSs on 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel vehicles) because “CARB has not complied with the lead time and stability requirements of section 202(a)(3)(C)” of the Clean Air Act. This comment also does not comport with the section 209 criteria. California must take lead-time into account, and EPA must consider lead-time when evaluating California's regulations pursuant to section 209(e)'s consistency requirements. However, the lead-time inquiry EPA undertakes relates to technological feasibility. Specifically, consistency with section 202(a) requires the Administrator to first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the technology before the standards go into effect.
After a review of the information submitted by CARB and other parties to this proceeding, EPA finds that those opposing California's request have not met the burden of demonstrating that a waiver for California's APS requirements should be denied based on any of the three statutory criteria of section 209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA finds that California's APS requirements should be authorized.
California's Truck Idling Requirements also impose emission requirements on fuel-fired heaters. Fuel-fired heaters provide heat to truck cabs or sleeper berths and/or preheat engine blocks during cold weather. Fuel-fired heaters on 2007 and later model year trucks operating in California may now only operate fuel-fired heaters that comply with California's second generation of low emission vehicle (LEV II) regulations.
With respect to CARB's fuel-fired heater requirements, in the July 27, 2010
CARB presents that its fuel-fired heater requirements are not preempted and, accordingly, do not require an authorization.
Engine manufacturers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and internal combustion APSs manufacturers, as applicable, are required to produce and affix permanent labels to the hood of the truck. These labels are intended to assist CARB enforcement staff in clearly and easily identifying diesel trucks that comply with the California Truck Idling Requirements. As stated above, EPA is today issuing a waiver of preemption for the new engine requirements and an authorization for the APS requirements. California's engine and optional NO
OOIDA's comments present two other issues that generally challenge California's Truck Idling Requirements. First, OOIDA asserts that CARB should be prohibited from enforcing its Truck Idling Requirements until EPA approves them. Second, OOIDA asserts that federal laws other than the Clean Air Act may preempt California's Truck Idling Requirements. As EPA has stated on numerous occasions, sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act limit our authority to deny California requests for waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(b) waivers of preemption and section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating CARB's Truck Idling Requirements, CARB's submissions, and the public comments from ATA and OOIDA, EPA is taking the following actions. First, EPA is granting a waiver of preemption to California for its new engine requirements. Second, EPA is granting
My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's requirements in order to produce vehicles for sale in California. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by April 16, 2012. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.
Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 1, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 12, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 2, 2012, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Savannah River Site from January 1, 1953, through September 30, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the Linde Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 2, 2012, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked in any area at the Linde Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York, from November 1, 1947, through December 31, 1953, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a determination concerning a petition to add a class of employees from the Hooker Electrochemical Company in Niagara Falls, New York, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384q. On February 2, 2012, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:
All employees who worked in any location at the Hooker Electrochemical Corporation during the operational period from January 1, 1943, through December 31, 1948, and during the residual period from January 1, 1949, to December 31, 1976.
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office for Human Research Protections.
Notice.
42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), a program office in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), previously published a notice (76 FR 243, 19 Dec 2011, pp. 78660-78661) seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as members of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP). OHRP would like to announce a four week extension of the SACHRP nomination period. As a result of this extension, the nomination period will now end at the close of business on March 16, 2012.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than March 16, 2012.
Nominations should be mailed or delivered to Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852. Nominations will not be accepted by email or by facsimile.
Julia Gorey, Executive Director, SACHRP, Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852, telephone: 240-453-8141. A copy of the Committee charter and list of the current members can be obtained by contacting Ms. Gorey, accessing the SACHRP Web site at
The Committee provides advice on matters pertaining to the continuance and improvement of functions within the authority of HHS directed toward protections for human subjects in research. Specifically, the Committee provides advice relating to the responsible conduct of research involving human subjects with particular emphasis on special populations such as neonates and children, prisoners, the decisionally impaired, pregnant women, embryos and fetuses; individuals and populations in international studies, investigator conflicts of interest and research involving individually identifiable samples, data or information.
In addition, the Committee is responsible for reviewing selected ongoing work and planned activities of
The individuals selected for appointment to the Committee can be invited to serve a term of up to four years. Committee members receive a stipend and reimbursement for per diem and any travel expenses incurred for attending Committee meetings or conducting other business in the interest of the Committee. Interested applicants may self-nominate.
Nominations should be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., specific attributes which qualify the nominee for service in this capacity), and a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee; (2) the nominator's name, address, daytime telephone number, and the home or work address, telephone number, and email address of the individual being nominated; and (3) a current copy of the nominee's curriculum vitae. Federal employees should not be nominated for consideration of appointment to this Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that individuals from a broad representation of geographic areas, women and men, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership on HHS Federal advisory committees. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Individuals who are selected to be considered for appointment will be required to provide detailed information regarding their financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts. Disclosure of this information is necessary in order to determine if the selected candidate is involved in any activity that may pose a potential conflict with the official duties to be performed as a member of SACHRP.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) provides for the formation of Patient Safety Organizations (PSOs), which collect, aggregate, and analyze confidential information regarding the quality and safety of health care delivery. The Patient Safety Act (at 42 U.S.C. 299b-23) authorizes the collection of this information in a standardized manner, as explained in the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting to discuss the Common Formats technical specifications. This meeting is designed as an interactive forum where PSOs and software developers can provide input on these technical specifications. AHRQ especially requests input from those entities which have used AHRQ's technical specifications and implemented, or plan to implement, the formats electronically.
The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on April 12, 2012.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Susan Grinder, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Disability Management at (301) 827-4840, no later than March 28, 2012.
The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule establish a framework by which doctors, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other health care providers may voluntarily report information regarding patient safety events and quality of care. Information that is assembled and developed by providers for reporting to PSOs and the information received and analyzed by PSOs—called “patient safety work product”—is privileged and confidential. Patient safety work product is used to identify events, patterns of care, and unsafe conditions that increase risks and hazards to patients. Definitions and other details about PSOs and patient safety work product are included in the Patient Safety Rule.
The Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule require PSOs, to the extent practical and appropriate, to collect patient safety work product from providers in a standardized manner in order to permit valid comparisons of similar cases among similar providers. The collection of patient safety work product allows the aggregation of sufficient data to identify and address underlying causal factors of patient safety problems. Both the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, including any relevant guidance, can be accessed electronically at:
In collaboration with the interagency Federal Patient Safety Workgroup (PSWG), the National Quality Forum (NQF) and the public, AHRQ has developed Common Formats for two settings of care—acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities—in order to facilitate standardized data collection. The term “Common Formats” refers to the common definitions and reporting formats that allow health care providers to collect and submit standardized information regarding patient safety events. AHRQ's Common Formats include:
• Event descriptions (descriptions of patient safety events and unsafe conditions to be reported),
• Specifications for patient safety aggregate reports and individual event summaries,
• Delineation of data elements to be collected for different types of events to populate the reports,
• A user's guide and quick guide, and
• Technical specifications for electronic data collection and reporting.
AHRQ convenes the PSWG to assist AHRQ with developing and maintaining the Common Formats. The PSWG includes major health agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office of Public Health and Science, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—as well as the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.
When developing Common Formats, AHRQ first reviews existing patient safety event reporting systems from a variety of health care organizations. In collaboration with the PSWG and Federal subject matter experts, AHRQ drafts and releases beta versions of the Common Formats for public review and comment.
Through a contract with AHRQ, NQF solicits feedback on the beta (and subsequent) versions of the Common Formats from private sector organizations and individuals. The NQF, a nonprofit organization that focuses on health care quality, then convenes an expert panel to review the comments received and provide feedback to AHRQ. Based upon the expert panel's feedback, AHRQ, in conjunction with the PSWG, further revises the Common Formats.
The technical specifications promote standardization of collected patient safety event information by specifying rules for data collection and submission, as well as by providing guidance for how and when to create data elements, their valid values, conditional and go-to logic, and reports. These specifications will ensure that data collected by PSOs and other entities have comparable clinical meaning.
The technical specifications also provide direction to software developers, so that the Common Formats can be implemented electronically, and to PSOs, so that the Common Formats can be submitted electronically to the PSO Privacy Protection Center (PSO PPC) for data de-identification and transmission to the Network of Patient Safety Databases (NPSD).
Most recently, AHRQ and the PSWG released the beta version of the Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) format for reporting of VTE-related patient safety events as announced in the
The Software Developer's meeting will focus on discussion of an anticipated Spring release—Hospital Common Formats 1.2—and the technical specifications, which provide direction to software developers that plan to implement the Common Formats electronically. The technical specifications are a critical component that allow for the aggregation of patient safety event data.
The technical specifications consist of the following:
• Data dictionary—defines data elements and their attributes (data element name, answer values, field length, guide for use, etc.) included in Common Formats;
• Clinical document architecture (CDA) implementation guide—provides instructions for developing a file to transmit the Common Formats Patient Safety data from the PSO to the PSO PPC using the Common Formats;
• Validation rules and errors document—specifies and defines the validation rules that will be applied to the Common Formats data elements submitted to the PSO PPC;
• Common Formats flow charts—diagrams the valid paths to complete generic and event specific formats (a complete event report);
• Local specifications—provides specifications for processing, linking and reporting on events and details specifications for reports; and
• Metadata registry—includes descriptive facts about information contained in the data dictionary to illustrate how such data corresponds with similar data elements used by other Federal agencies and standards development organizations [e.g., HL—7, International Standards Organization (ISO)].
On Thursday, April 12, 2012, the meeting will convene at 10 a.m. with an overview of the Common Formats, including the Hospital Common Formats Version 1.2 technical specifications, and next steps for upcoming Common Formats releases. AHRQ staff and contractors will review database functionality, which is available through the PSO PPC, for PSOs to generate aggregate reports with technical specifications. Finally, the meeting will review data submission both by PSOs and by vendors on behalf of a PSO. Throughout the meeting there will be interactive discussion to allow meeting participants not only to provide input, but also to respond to the input provided by others. A more specific proposed agenda will be posted before the meeting at
AHRQ requests that interested persons register with the PSO PPC on the Internet at
Prior to the meeting, AHRQ invites review of the technical specifications for Common Formats. The formats can be
A summary of the meeting will be provided upon request. If you are unable to participate in the meeting and would like a copy of the summary, please send an email to supportpsoppc.ORG and it will be sent as soon as it is available after the meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and pursuant to the requirements of 42 CFR 83.15(a), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Public Comment Times and Dates (All times are Pacific Time):5 p.m.-6:30 p.m.,* February 28, 2012.
* Please note that the public comment periods may end before the times indicated, following the last call for comments. Members of the public who wish to provide public comments should plan to attend public comment sessions at the start times listed.
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibilityfor funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2013.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted in accordance with the redaction policy provided below. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces six new membership appointments to the Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP, the Panel). The six appointments to the 19 member Panel will each serve a 4-year period. Five of the new members will have terms that begin on February 1, 2012 and continuing through January 31, 2016. The sixth member's term will begin on August 1, 2012 and continuing through July 31, 2016. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services concerning the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification groups and their weights. The Panel also addresses and makes recommendations regarding supervision of outpatient services. The advice provided by the Panel will be considered as we prepare the annual updates for the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
For additional information on the Panel meeting dates, agenda topics, copy of the charter, as well as updates to the Panel's activities, search our Internet Web site:
For other information regarding the Panel, contact Paula Smith, the Designated Federal Officer at CMS, Center for Medicare, Hospital and Ambulatory Policy Group, Division of Outpatient Care, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4-05-13, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, phone (410) 786-4709. Information can also be obtained by contacting the CMS Advisory Committees' Information Line at 1-877-449-5659 (toll free) and (410) 786-9379 (local).
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(9)(A)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 217a) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel on the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification groups and weights. The Advisory Panel on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP, the Panel) is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels. The Panel Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the outpatient prospective payment system for the next calendar year.
The Panel shall consist of a chair and up to 19 members who are full-time employees of hospitals, hospital systems, or other Medicare providers. The Secretary or a designee selects the Panel membership based upon either self-nominations or nominations submitted by Medicare providers and other interested organizations. New appointments are made in a manner that ensures a balanced membership under the FACA guidelines.
The Panel presently consists of the following members and a Chair: (The asterisk [*] indicates a Panel member whose term expires on July 31, 2012).
• Edith Hambrick, M.D., J.D., Chair, CMS Medical Officer.
• Ruth L. Bush, M.D., M.P.H.
• Kari S. Cornicelli, C.P.A., FHFMA.
• Dawn L. Francis, M.D., M.H.S.
• Kathleen Graham, R.N., M.S.H.A.*
• David A. Halsey, M.D.
• Brian D. Kavanagh, M.D., MPH.
• Judith T. Kelly, R.H.I.T., R.H.I.A., C.C.S.
• Scott Manaker, M.D., Ph.D.
• John Marshall, CRA, RCC, CIRCC, RT(R), FAHRA.
• Jacqueline Phillips.
• Randall A. Oyer, M.D.
• Daniel J. Pothen, M.S., RHIA, CHPS.
• Gregory Przybylski, M.D.
• Marianna V. Spanaki-Varela, MD, Ph.D., M.B.A.
We published a notice in the
•
•
•
•
•
The new member of the Panel with a term beginning on August 1, 2012, and continuing through July 31, 2016 is:
•
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(9)(A)). The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Design and Methodology for Postmarket Surveillance Studies under Section 522 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”. The purpose of the public workshop is to provide a forum for discussion among FDA, industry, governmental agencies, academia, clinicians and various stakeholders with experience in epidemiology, statistics, and biomedical research to advance the design and methodologies for medical device surveillance studies in the “postmarket” setting, i.e., after FDA premarket approval or clearance of the device and marketing of the device has begun.
The meeting will be held on March 7, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm 1503 (the Great Room), Silver Spring, MD 20993. For parking and security information, please visit the following Web site:
Samantha Jacobs, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4201C, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6897, email:
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan at
The purpose of the proposed workshop is to facilitate discussion among the FDA, industry, governmental agencies, academia, clinicians, and key stakeholders with experience in epidemiology, statistics, and biomedical research in the scientific community to advance the design and methodologies for medical device surveillance studies in the postmarket setting.
This workshop is open to all interested parties. The target audience is professionals in the scientific community interested in advancing the infrastructure and methodology for postmarket surveillance studies.
We intend to discuss a large number of issues at the workshop, including, but not limited to the following:
• Regulations for postmarket surveillance studies,
• Challenges and opportunities for collaborative efforts,
• Innovative methodologies and scientific infrastructure to promote innovation,
• Role of networks, registries and observational studies,
Background information on the public workshop, registration information, the agenda, information about lodging, and other relevant information will be posted, as it becomes available, on the Internet at
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
Comments are invited on: (a) The proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148), historic and transformative legislation designed to make quality, affordable health care available to all Americans, reduce costs, improve health care quality, enhance disease prevention, and strengthen the health care workforce. Through a provision authorizing the creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, the Act responds to the diverse needs of children and families in communities at risk and provides an unprecedented opportunity for collaboration and partnership at the Federal, State and community levels to improve health and development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs. The MIECHV Program is designed: (1) To strengthen and improve the programs and activities carried out under Title V; (2) to improve coordination of services for at-risk communities; and (3) to identify and provide comprehensive services to improve outcomes for families who reside in at-risk communities.
The Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 U.S.C. 711), as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, requires that MIECHV grantees collect data to measure improvements for eligible families in six specified areas (referred to as “benchmark areas”) that encompass the major goals for the program. The Supplemental Information Request for the Submission of the Updated State Plan for a State Home Visiting Program (SIR), published on February 8, 2011, further listed a variety of constructs under each benchmark area for which grantees were to select and submit relevant performance measures. Per Section 511(d)(1)(B)(i) of the legislation, no later than 30 days after the end of the third year of the program, grantees are required to demonstrate improvement in at least four of the six benchmark areas. The SIR and subsequent MIECHV guidance documents for both competitive and formula grants also require that grantees report annually on the constructs under each benchmark area, as well as on demographic, service utilization, budgetary and other administrative data related to program implementation.
The proposed data collection and reporting forms were developed by an internal MIECHV workgroup in consultation with Home Visiting Model Developers and selected grantees. The data collected from the proposed forms will be used to track the grantees' progress in demonstrating improvement under each benchmark area and to provide an overall picture of the population being served. The proposed data collection forms are as follows:
Form 1—Demographic and Service Utilization Data for Enrollees and Children: This form will request data to determine the unduplicated number of participants and of participant groups by primary insurance coverage. This form will also request data on the demographic characteristics of program participants. For example, data will be
Form 2—State Performance Measures Template: Grantees have already selected relevant performance measures for the legislatively identified benchmark areas. This form provides a template for grantees to report aggregate data on their State-selected performance measures.
While there will be variation in the data collection and reporting burden to the grantees based on the number of families served and state data system capacity, the estimated average annual burden is as follows:
Email comments to
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice, OMB Control Number 1615-0049, is published in the
During this 60-day period USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form N-25. Should USCIS decide to revise this form it will advise the public when it publishes the 30-day notice in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Clearance Office, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-0997, or via email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Management Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, telephone number 202-272-8377.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Form I-361, Affidavit of Financial Support and Intent To Petition for Legal Custody for Public Law 97-359 Amerasian.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice is published in the
During this 60-day period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise the Form I-361. Should USCIS decide to revise Form I-361 we will advise the public when we publish the 30-day notice in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Clearance Office, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-0997, or via email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit the USCIS Web site at:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020, Telephone number 202-272-8377.
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Forms G-1041 and G-1041A, Genealogy Index Search Request and Genealogy Records Request.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice is published in the
During this 60 day period, USCIS will be evaluating whether to revise forms G-1041 and G-1041A. Should USCIS decide to revise forms G-1041 and G-1041A, we will advise the public when we publish the 30-day notice in the
Written comments and suggestions regarding items contained in this notice and especially with regard to the estimated public burden and associated response time should be directed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), USCIS, Chief, Regulatory Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020. Comments may also be submitted to DHS via facsimile to 202-272-8352, or via email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Form G-1041A—1,683 responses (electronically submitted) at 1 hour (60 minutes) per response and 823 responses (submitted by mail) at 1.08 hours (68 minutes).
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please visit:
We may also be contacted at: USCIS, Regulatory Products Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2020, telephone number 202-272-8377.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has established the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, the 554th unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service established the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area on September 21, 2011, with the purchase of a 318.18-acre grassland easement in Walworth County, South Dakota.
A map depicting the approved Refuge boundary and other information regarding the Refuge is available on the Internet at
Nick Kaczor, Planning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, USFWS, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, CO 80225.
The Service established the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota, which cover all counties north and east of the Missouri River except those in the existing Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area. The Service will continue to conserve wetland and grassland resources in the conservation area, primarily through the purchase of perpetual easements from willing sellers. These wetland and grassland easements will connect and expand existing lands under conservation protection.
The area's strong and vibrant rural lifestyle, of which agriculture is the dominant land use, is one of the key components to ensuring habitat integrity and wildlife resource protection. Based on anticipated levels of landowner participation, objectives for the conservation area are to protect 240,000 acres of wetland and 1.7 million acres of critical grassland habitat. The conservation area is a landscape-scale effort to conserve populations of priority species in a highly diverse and endangered ecosystem over an area of approximately 29.6 million acres. Therefore, it is important to incorporate the elements of strategic habitat conservation (SHC) to ensure effective conservation. SHC entails strategic biological planning and conservation design, integrated conservation delivery, monitoring, and research at ecoregional scales.
This conservation area allows the Service to purchase critical wetland and grassland easements, using the acquisition authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-j). In response to comments received during the public review of the draft environmental assessment (EA) and land protection plan (LPP), the Service included the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-r). The Federal money used to acquire conservation easements is from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-4 through 11; funds received under this act are derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property), and the sale of Federal Duck Stamps [Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j, 48 Stat. 452)]. Additional funding to acquire lands, water, or interests for fish and wildlife conservation purposes could be identified by Congress or donated by nonprofit organizations. The purchase of easements from willing sellers will be subject to available money.
The Service has involved the public, agencies, partners, and legislators throughout the planning process for the easement program. At the beginning of the planning process, the Service initiated public involvement for the proposal to protect habitats primarily through acquisition of wetland and grassland conservation easements for management as part of the Refuge System. The Service spent time discussing the proposed project with landowners; conservation organizations; Federal, State and county governments; tribes and other interested groups and individuals. The Service held three open-house meetings on December 14, 15, and 16, 2010, at Minot, North Dakota; Jamestown, North Dakota; and Huron, South Dakota; respectively. These open houses were announced in local media.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Service prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that evaluated two alternatives and their potential impacts on the project area. The Service released the draft environmental assessment (EA) and LPP on June 20, 2011, for a 30-day public review period. The draft documents were made available to Federal elected officials and agencies, State elected officials and agencies, 32 Native American tribes with aboriginal or tribal interests, local media, and other members of the public that were identified during the scoping process.
In addition, two public meetings were held, in Bismarck, North Dakota, and in Miller, South Dakota, on June 28 and 29, 2011, respectively. These meetings were announced in advance in local media. Approximately 50 landowners, citizens, and elected representatives attended the meetings. The Service received 10 letters from agencies, organizations, and other entities, and 347 general public comments. After all comments were received, they were reviewed, added to the administrative record, and incorporated into the environmental assessment (EA) if substantial.
Based on the documentation contained in the environmental assessment (EA), a Finding of No Significant Impact was signed on September 1, 2011, for the establishment of the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Notice.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC” or “Commission”), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, is seeking reinstatement of the approval for collection of information for the following activities: (1) Compliance and enforcement under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA” or “the Act”); (2) approval of Class II background investigation and tribal licenses; (3) management contract regulations; (4) National Environmental Policy Act procedures; (5) annual fees payable by Indian gaming operations; (6) issuance of certificates of self regulation to tribes for Class II gaming; (7) minimum internal control standards; and (8) facility license review. These information collections have expired.
Submit comments on or before April 16, 2012.
Comments can be mailed, faxed, or emailed to the attention of Michael Hoenig, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Comments may be faxed to (202) 632-7066 (not a toll-free number). Comments may be sent electronically to
Michael Hoenig at (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).
You are invited to comment on the following items:
(a) Whether the collections of information are 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 burdens (including the hours and cost) of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodologies and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and become a matter of public record.
In accordance with this provision, NIGC regulations, 25 CFR 522.2, require tribes to submit to the NIGC: (1) A copy of the gaming ordinance to be approved, including a copy of the authorizing resolution by which it was enacted by the tribal government and a request for approval of the ordinance or resolution; (2) a description of procedures the tribe will employ in conducting background
Under NIGC regulations, 25 CFR 522.3, tribes must submit any amendment to the ordinance or resolution for approval by the NIGC Chair. In this instance, the tribe must provide a copy of the authorizing resolution. The NIGC will use the information collected to approve or disapprove the ordinance or amendment.
Section 2710 of the Act requires tribes to conduct background investigations on key employees and primary management officials involved in class II and class III gaming. NIGC regulations, 25 CFR 522.4(b)(4), require a tribe's ordinance to provide that the tribe will perform background investigations and issue licenses for key employees and primary management officials according to requirements that are at least as stringent as those in NIGC regulations, 25 CFR parts 556 and 558. 25 CFR parts 556 and 558 require tribes to perform each investigation using information such as name, address, previous employment records, previous relationships with either Indian tribes or the gaming industry, licensing relating to those relationships, any convictions, and any other information a tribe feels is relevant to the employment of the individuals being investigated. 25 CFR 556.4. Tribes are then required to submit to the NIGC a copy of the completed employment applications and investigative reports and licensing eligibility determinations on key employees or primary management officials before issuing gaming licenses to those persons. 25 CFR 556.5. The NIGC uses this information to review the eligibility and suitability determinations tribes make and advises them if it disagrees with any particular determination.
Under NIGC regulations, 25 CFR part 533, the Chair requires the submission of the contract to contain the following: original signatures; any collateral agreements to the contract; a tribal ordinance or resolution authorizing the submission and supporting documentation; a three-year business plan which sets forth the parties' goals, objectives, budgets, financial plans, related matters, income statements, sources and use of funds statements for the previous three years; and, for any contract exceeding five years or which includes a management fee of more than 30 percent, justification that the capital investment required and income projections for the gaming operation require the longer duration or the additional fee.
Under NIGC regulations, 25 CFR part 535, the Chair may approve a modification to a management contract or an assignment of that management contract based on information similar to that required under part 533. Part 535 also specifies that the Chair may void a previous management contract approval and allows the parties the opportunity to submit information relevant to that determination.
25 CFR part 537 specifies the requirements for submission of background information in amplification of the statutory requirement for obtaining information on persons and entities having a direct financial interest in or management responsibility for a management contract. Finally, 25 CFR part 539 permits appeals to the Commission from a decision of the Chair to disapprove a management contract and allows the Indian tribe and the management company an opportunity to provide information relevant to that appeal. The NIGC will use the information collected to either approve or disapprove the contract or, in the case of an appeal, to grant or deny the appeal.
Those tribes who have been issued a certificate of self-regulation are required to submit annually a report to the NIGC. Such report shall set forth information to establish that the tribe has continuously met the eligibility requirements of 25 CFR 518.2 and the approval requirements of 25 CFR 518.4 and shall include a report with supporting documentation which explains how tribal gaming revenues were used in accordance with the requirements of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(B).
NIGC regulations, part 559 requires that a tribe submit a notice to the NIGC that it is considering issuing a facility license, including applicable Indian lands information, at least 120 days before a new class II and/or class III gaming facility is opened. The amount of Indian lands information depends, in part, on whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains the necessary records. The Indian lands information will continue to be utilized by the NIGC to ensure that its records are complete for internal purposes, such as assessing the NIGC's jurisdiction to regulate the gaming on the parcel, as well as responding to inquiries from government agencies and Congress as to the statuses of lands where Indian gaming is proposed or occurring.
Part 559 also requires that tribes submit copies of each newly issued or renewed facility license to the NIGC within 30 days of issuance, as well as notices of facility closures. This information will enable the NIGC to maintain accurate, up-to-date records of the Indian gaming facilities that are operating on Indian lands in the United States at any given point in time. Currently, facility licenses must be renewed every three years. With each new facility license, the Tribe must submit an attestation that it has identified and enforces environment and public health and safety laws and that the tribe is in compliance with those laws. Part 559 also requires tribes to submit a document listing all environmental and public safety laws, resolutions, codes, policies and standards applicable to its gaming facility. If the submitted laws, resolutions, etc. do not change, the tribe need only certify that fact when submitting a renewed facility license. Finally, the NIGC Chair has the discretion to request environmental and public health and safety documentation on occasions when there is an identified, substantial concern. Through these submissions, the NIGC can ensure that the tribes have determined that the construction, maintenance, and operation of their gaming facilities are conducted in a manner that adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety.
This information collection serves two purposes: (i) to receive up-to-date information from tribes regarding the number of licensed Indian gaming facilities and the Indian lands status of the site of each gaming facility; and (ii) to obtain certifications from the tribes that the construction, maintenance, and operation of the gaming facilities are conducted in a manner that adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Reclamation intends to seek an extension of the information collection for the Lower Colorado River Well Inventory (1006-0014). The current OMB approval expires on May 31, 2012.
Submit comments on this notice by April 16, 2012.
Send all written comments concerning this notice to Paul Matuska, Water Accounting and Verification Group Manager, LC-4200, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, P.O. Box 61470, Boulder City, NV 89006-1470; or by email to
Paul Matuska, Water Accounting and Verification Group Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado Regional Office, 702-293-8164.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Bureau of Reclamation is requesting approval for the collection of data from well and river-pump owners and operators along the lower Colorado River in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;
(b) The accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We will publish that summary in the
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam operations and other management actions to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, consistent with the Grand Canyon Protection Act. The AMWG meets two to three times a year.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2012, from 9:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m., and Thursday, February 23, 2012, from 8 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Fiesta Resort Conference Center, 2100 S. Priest Drive, Tempe, Arizona.
Glen Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, telephone (801) 524-3781; facsimile (801) 524-3858; email at
The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (AMP) was implemented as a result of the Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to comply with consultation requirements of the Grand Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP includes a Federal advisory committee, the AMWG, a technical work group (TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, and independent review panels. The TWG is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice and recommendations to the AMWG.
To view a copy of the agenda and documents related to the above meeting, please visit Reclamation's Web site at
Before including your name, address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 22, 2011. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 27, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Q-Lambda, Lund, Sweden; Exlar Corporation, Chanhassen, MN; Spang Power Electronics, Mentor, OH; and ASCO Pneumatic Controls, Florham Park, NJ, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 1, 2011. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 27, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 3, 2011. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 22, 2011. A notice was published in the
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:
All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Judith H. Lock, Executive Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.
The Bureau of International Labor Affairs, United States Department of Labor.
Notice: Request for information and invitation to comment.
This notice is a request for information and/or comment on reports issued by the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) October 3, 2011, regarding child labor and forced labor in foreign countries. Relevant information will be used by the Department of Labor (DOL) in preparation of its ongoing reporting under Congressional mandates and Presidential directive. In addition, ILAB may use relevant information to conduct assessments of each country's individual progress towards eliminating the worst forms of child labor during the current reporting period compared to previous years.
Submitters of information are requested to provide their submission to the Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human Trafficking (OCFT) at the email or physical address below by 5 p.m. March 9, 2012.
•
The portal includes instructions for submitting comments. Parties submitting responses electronically are encouraged not to submit paper copies.
•
•
•
Tina McCarter (see contact information above).
I. Section 105(b)(1) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (“TVPRA of 2005”), Public Law 109-164 (2006), directed the Secretary of Labor, acting through ILAB, to “develop and make available to the public a list of goods from countries that the Bureau of International Labor Affairs has reason to believe are produced by forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards” (TVPRA List).
Pursuant to this mandate, in December 2007 DOL published in the
ILAB released its first TVPRA List on September 30, 2009, an update on December 10, 2010 and another update on October 3, 2011. This List is updated periodically as additional countries and territories are researched and new information for countries and territories already reviewed is evaluated. For a copy of the 2011 TVPRA report, Frequently Asked Questions, and other materials relating to the TVPRA List, see ILAB's TVPRA Web page at:
II. Executive Order No. 13126 (E.O. 13126) declared that it was “the policy of the United States Government * * * that the executive agencies shall take appropriate actions to enforce the laws prohibiting the manufacture or importation of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or indentured child labor.” Pursuant to E.O. 13126, and following public notice and comment, the Department of Labor published in the January 18, 2001,
Pursuant to Sections D through G of the Procedural Guidelines, the EO List may be updated through consideration of submissions by individuals or through OCFT's own initiative.
DOL has officially revised the EO List twice, on July 20, 2010 and May 31, 2011, each time after public notice and comment as well as consultation with DOS and DHS. In addition, DOL published an initial determination on October 4, 2011 proposing another revision to the EO List and requesting public comment (76 FR 61384).
The current EO List, Procedural Guidelines, and related information can be accessed on the Internet at
III. The Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA), Public Law 106-200 (2002), established a new eligibility criterion for receipt of trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act (CBTPA), and Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The TDA amends the GSP reporting requirements of Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2464, to require that the President's annual report on the status of internationally recognized worker rights include “findings by the Secretary of Labor with respect to the beneficiary country's implementation of its international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.” Title II of the TDA and the TDA Conference Report, Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 106th Cong.2d.Sess. (2000), indicate that the same criterion applies for the receipt of benefits under CBTPA and AGOA, respectively.
In addition, the Andean Trade Preference Act, as amended and expanded by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, Public Law 107-210, Title XXXI (2002), includes as a criterion for receiving benefits “[w]hether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor as defined in section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.” DOL fulfills these reporting mandates through annual publication of the U.S. Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor with respect to countries eligible for the aforementioned programs. The 2010 report and additional background information are available on the Internet at
This notice is a general solicitation of comments from the public.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification submitted to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards codified in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before March 19, 2012.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
MSHA will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments.
Barbara Barron, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9447 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary of Labor determines that:
(1) An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or
(2) That the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine.
In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modification.
(1) Equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(2) Equivalent non-electronic surveying equipment is obsolete technology and new replacement equipment does not exist; replacement parts and reconditioned equipment are becoming increasingly unavailable.
(3) The continued use of obsolete and worn or reconditioned equipment that may be inaccurate will result in a diminution of safety in that surveys will become increasingly inaccurate which could result in:
(a) The development of entries that are not straight and true.
(b) Pillar sizes that may become compromised.
(c) The location of mine workings that may be inaccurate, creating reduced barrier pillar sizes when approaching old workings and outcrops.
(4) In the alternative to compliance with the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) Non-permissible surveying equipment will be used only when equivalent permissible equipment does not exist.
(b) All non-permissible surveying equipment will be limited to:
(i) Topcon Electronic Total Station Model GTS-233W 7.2 volts d.c.
(ii) Topcon Electronic Total Station Model GTS-235W 7.2 volts d.c.
(iii) Topcon Electronic Total Station Model GTS-211D 7.2 volts d.c.
(iv) Nikon Total Station Nivo Series Model Nivo 2.C 3.8 volts d.c.
(v) Nikon DTM-302 Series Model DTM-352 7.2 volts d.c.
(vi) Spectra Precision Nomad Data Collector 5.0 volts d.c.
(vii) Equivalent equipment with equal or lower voltages.
(c) All non-permissible surveying equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut or in a return airway will be examined by a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, at least weekly to ensure that the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The results of the inspection will be recorded and the record will be retained for one year and made available for review by MSHA upon request.
(d) All non-permissible surveying equipment to be used in or inby the last open crosscut or in a return airway will be examined in fresh air outby the last open crosscut prior to being used to ensure that the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition. The examination will include:
(i) Checking the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Powering-up and shutting-down the instrument to ensure proper operation.
(iii) Checking the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(e) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or in a return airway.
(f) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more methane is detected while the non-permissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and withdrawn outby the last open crosscut or out of a return airway.
(g) All hand-held methane detectors will be MSHA-approved and maintained in permissible and proper operating condition as defined in 30 CFR 75.320.
(h) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used when coal production is occurring in the entry being surveyed unless it is necessary for the surveying.
(i) Batteries contained in the non-permissible surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in intake air outby the last open crosscut.
(j) Personnel who use the non-permissible surveying equipment will be trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with its use.
(k) The non-permissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with all of the terms and conditions in this petition.
(l) Within 60 days after this petition becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR part 48 training plan to the District Manager. The revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions in this petition.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as that afforded by the existing standard.
(1) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
(2) Underground mining, by its nature, size, complexity, and relative closeness to other abandoned mines, gas/oil wells, and other features,
(3) The use of currently available non-electronic equipment is less accurate and less dependable than the available electronic equipment and requires more exposure of surveyors to hazardous mining environments. As an alternative to compliance with the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) To examine all non-permissible electronic surveying equipment prior to use in or inby the last open crosscut to ensure that the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition, and have a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, examine the equipment at intervals not to exceed 7 days. The examination results will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book. The examinations will include:
(i) Checks of the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removal of the battery and an inspection for corrosion and damage.
(iii) Inspection of the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinsertion of the battery and a power-up and shut-down of the instrument to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checks of the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(b) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or in the return.
(c) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more of methane is detected while the non-permissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and the non-permissible electronic equipment will be withdrawn out of the return.
(d) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used in areas where float coal dust is in suspension.
(e) Batteries contained in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air and not in the return.
(f) Qualified personnel who use the surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of non-permissible surveying equipment.
(g) The non-permissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with the terms and conditions in this petition.
(h) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These proposed revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the Proposed Decision and Order.
The petitioner further states that the nature of work at times will require that surveying services that would be covered by this petition be provided on short notice and, therefore, does not want the petitions to apply to specific companies or mines. The petitioner states that the list of companies and mines in this petition is not all-inclusive.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
(2) Underground mining, by its nature, size, complexity, and relative closeness to other abandoned mines, gas/oil wells, and other features, requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.
(3) The use of currently available non-electronic equipment is less accurate and less dependable than the available electronic equipment and requires more exposure of surveyors to hazardous mining environments. As an alternative to compliance with the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) To examine all non-permissible electronic surveying equipment prior to use in or inby the last open crosscut to ensure that the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition, and have a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, examine the equipment at intervals not to exceed 7 days. The examination results will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book. The examinations will include:
(i) Checks of the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removal of the battery and an inspection for corrosion and damage.
(iii) Inspection of the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinsertion of the battery and a power-up and shut-down of the instrument to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checks of the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(b) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or in the return.
(c) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more of methane is detected while the non-permissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and the non-permissible electronic equipment will be withdrawn out of the return.
(d) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used in areas where float coal dust is in suspension.
(e) Batteries contained in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air and not in the return.
(f) Qualified personnel who use the surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of non-permissible surveying equipment.
(g) The non-permissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with the terms and conditions in this petition.
(h) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These proposed revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding the terms and conditions stated in the Proposed Decision and Order.
The petitioner further states that the nature of work at times will require that surveying services that would be covered by this petition be provided on short notice and, therefore, does not want the petitions to apply to specific companies or mines. The petitioner states that the list of companies and mines in this petition is not all-inclusive.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) Application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
(2) Underground mining, by its nature, size, complexity, and relative closeness to other abandoned mines, gas/oil wells, and other features, requires that accurate and precise measurements be completed in a prompt and efficient manner.
(3) The use of currently available non-electronic equipment is less accurate and less dependable than the available electronic equipment and requires more exposure of surveyors to hazardous mining environments. As an alternative to compliance with the existing standard, the petitioner proposes the following:
(a) To examine all non-permissible electronic surveying equipment prior to use in or inby the last open crosscut to ensure the equipment is being maintained in a safe operating condition, and have a qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.153, examine the equipment at intervals not to exceed 7 days. The examination results will be recorded in the weekly examination of electrical equipment book. The examinations will include:
(i) Checks of the instrument for any physical damage and the integrity of the case.
(ii) Removal of the battery and an inspection for corrosion and damage.
(iii) Inspection of the contact points to ensure a secure connection to the battery.
(iv) Reinsertion of the battery and a power-up and shut-down of the instrument to ensure proper connections.
(v) Checks of the battery compartment cover to ensure that it is securely fastened.
(b) A qualified person, as defined in 30 CFR 75.151, will continuously monitor for methane immediately before and during the use of non-permissible surveying equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or in the return.
(c) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used if methane is detected in concentrations at or above 1.0 percent. When 1.0 percent or more of methane is detected while the non-permissible surveying equipment is being used, the equipment will be deenergized immediately and the non-permissible electronic equipment will be withdrawn out of the return.
(d) Non-permissible surveying equipment will not be used in areas where float coal dust is in suspension.
(e) Batteries contained in the surveying equipment will be changed out or charged in fresh air and not in the return.
(f) Qualified personnel who use the surveying equipment will be properly trained to recognize the hazards and limitations associated with the use of non-permissible surveying equipment.
(g) The non-permissible surveying equipment will not be put into service until MSHA has initially inspected the equipment and determined that it is in compliance with the terms and conditions in this petition.
(h) Within 60 days after the Proposed Decision and Order becomes final, the petitioner will submit proposed revisions for its approved 30 CFR Part 48 training plan to the District Manager. These proposed revisions will specify initial and refresher training regarding
The petitioner further states that the nature of work at times will require that surveying services that would be covered by this petition be provided on short notice and, therefore, does not want the petitions to apply to specific companies or mines. The petitioner states that the list of companies and mines in this petition is not all-inclusive.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded by the existing standard.
(1) The Tennant Sweeper is operated only on paved flat roads within the surface mine property.
(2) The sweeper primarily operates with use of a hydraulic system. When the foot is taken off the accelerator the sweeper stops.
(3) The back brakes are currently inoperable and the unit is so old that the parts are hard to obtain to fix the system.
(4) The sweeper has a functional front braking system capable of stopping and holding the vehicle with a full load on the steepest incline it travels.
(5) The sweeper is operated only on day shift, only travels on dry roads and dusty days when the roads are not wet or slippery, and is put up for the winter.
(6) The sweeper is not capable of traveling over 5 miles per hour. It is generally run between 3 and 5 miles per hour within the plant. The standard on brakes requires at least 10 miles per hour to test the brakes, and the sweeper cannot go that fast.
(7) The sweeper has a fully functional parking brake system capable of holding the machine with a full load on the steepest incline it travels.
(8) The unit is not being supported by Tennant, the manufacturer.
(9) Any spare parts that can be obtained will no longer be produced once they are used up.
(10) What is available to fix the unit has been ordered, and the unit is needed to comply with environmental regulations.
As an alternative, the petitioner proposes to rely on the hydraulic system, the front brake system, and the parking brake to stop and hold the equipment with its typical load on the maximum grade it travels.
The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will at all times guarantee the miners no less than the same measure of protection as provided by the existing standard.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Suzanne H. Plimpton at (703) 292-7556 or send email to
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
ERCs conduct world-class research with an engineered systems perspective that integrates materials, devices, processes, components, control algorithms and/or other enabling elements to perform a well-defined function. These systems provide a unique academic research and education experience that involves integrative complexity and
ERCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, speed knowledge/technology transfer through partnerships between academe and industry, and prepare a more competitive future workforce. ERCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
Centers will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, ERCs will also be required to submit management and performance indicators annually to NSF via a data collection Web site that is managed by a technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of cash and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the ERC effort. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Vision and impact, (2) strategic plan, (3) research program, (4) innovation ecosystem and industrial collaboration, (5) education, (6) infrastructure (leadership, management, facilities, diversity) and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, progress toward center goals, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals and how they were overcome, plans for the future and anticipated research and other barriers to overcome in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), in cooperation with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), will hold a joint workshop on the Treatment of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Uncertainties. Since 2002, RES and EPRI, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research, have been developing state-of-the-art methods for conduct of PRA.
The purpose of the workshop is to bring together experts to gain a better understanding of the sources of uncertainty, how they manifest in the PRA, and their potential significance to the PRA model and results. More specifically, the workshop will address uncertainties associated with risk assessments for internal fires, seismic events, low power and shutdown (LPSD) conditions, and for the Level 2 portion of PRAs.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.);
Thursday, March 1, 2012 (8:30 a.m.—12:30 p.m.)
The Legacy Hotel & Meeting Centre; 1775 Rockville Pike; Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Because of limited available space, attendees are asked to pre-register (there is not a registration fee) as soon as possible. There will be the ability to call-in to the workshop. Please contact Matt Dennis, Sandia National Laboratories, at 505-284-0781, email:
Mary T. Drouin, Sr. Program Manager, Performance and Reliability Branch, Division of Risk Analysis, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Tel: 301-251-7574, Email:
This meeting is a Category 3 meeting.*
* Meetings between the NRC technical staff and external stakeholders are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, interveners, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to Commission policy statement, “Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings,” (67 FR 36920; May 28, 2002).
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this workshop, or need the workshop notice or agenda in another format (e.g., Braille, large print), please notify the NRC is meeting contact. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the Matter of USEC INC. (American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility and American Centrifuge Plant); Order EA-12-
USEC Inc., (USEC) is the holder of materials licenses SNM-7003 and SNM-2011 for the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility (Lead Cascade) and American Centrifuge Plant (ACP), respectively, which authorize the licensee to: (1) Possess and use source and special nuclear material at the Lead Cascade at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, Ohio, in accordance with materials license number SNM-7003; and (2) construct and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility (the ACP) at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, Ohio, in accordance with materials license number SNM-2011.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Order EA-11-013, dated February 10, 2011, approved the direct transfer of the licenses of the above facilities from USEC to the limited liability company American Centrifuge Operating, LLC (ACO), pursuant to Sections 161(b), 161(i), 161(o) and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended; 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and Title 10 of the
By letter dated January 6, 2012, and supplemented by letter dated January 27, 2012, USEC submitted a request to extend the date by which the license transfers must be completed from February 9, 2012, to February 8, 2013. USEC stated that Condition 3 of Order EA-11-013 will be satisfied following completion of actions with the DOE, without any linkage to the loan guarantee. In its January 27, 2012, letter, USEC stated that due to uncertainty, it appears that the date for completion of activities associated with the sub-lease will extend beyond May 18, 2012. Accordingly, USEC stated that it will not be able to fully implement the conditions in Order EA-11-013 by February 9, 2012, and is requesting a second extension to Order EA-11-013.
USEC states that there have been no changes in the information and technical and financial qualifications presented in its September 10, 2010, request to transfer the licenses (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML102660371). The NRC staff notes that its basis for approving the transfers of USEC's licenses for the Lead Cascade and the ACP from USEC to ACO is documented in its safety evaluation report (SER, ADAMS Accession No. ML103630748) supporting the February 10, 2011, Order.
The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by USEC in its September 10, 2010, transfer of licenses request, the information provided in its July 22, 2011, first extension request (ADAMS Accession No. ML11210B497), and supplemental electronic communication dated August 1, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11213A282), and the information provided in its January 6, 2012, second extension request, and supplemental letter dated January 27, 2012. Based on this review of the information provided by USEC, the NRC staff concludes that the basis for originally approving the transfers of USEC's licenses for the Lead Cascade and the ACP from USEC to ACO remains valid. The NRC staff evaluated the January 6, 2012, submittal and the January 27, 2012, supplemental letter and determined that USEC has shown good cause to extend the implementation period of Order EA-11-013 a second time and, therefore, the implementation date for Order EA-11-013 should be extended to February 8, 2013, the date by which the transfer of licenses must be completed.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234; and 10 CFR 30.34(b), 10 CFR 40.46, “Inalienability of Licenses,” and 10 CFR 70.36, “Inalienability of Licenses,”
This Order is effective upon issuance. The Order of February 10, 2011, as modified by the August 8, 2011, Order and this Order, remains in full force and effect.
For further details with respect to this Order, see the submittal dated January 6, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11210B497), the supplemental letter dated January 27, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12032A279), and the SER documenting NRC's staff evaluation of USEC's submittal dated February 8, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12027A034), which may be examined—and/or copied for a fee—at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, MD 20852; and accessible online in the NRC Library at
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On December 14, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to establish fees for transactions in options on the CBOE Emerging Market ETF Volatility Index (“VXEEM”), the CBOE Brazil ETF Volatility Index (“VXEWZ”) and the CBOE Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index (“OVX”). 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 received approval to list and trade options on the CBOE Emerging Market ETF Volatility Index (“VXEEM”), the CBOE Brazil ETF Volatility Index (“VXEWZ”) and the CBOE Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index (“OVX”) (collectively herein, “volatility indexes”), which are up-to-the-minute market estimates of the expected volatility of their corresponding exchange-traded funds (“ETF”)
The purpose of this rule change is to clarify that the existing transaction fees for “Volatility Indexes” shall apply for transactions in VXEEM options, VXEWZ options and OVX options except that the existing Surcharge Fee (currently $.10 per contract for Volatility Index options) will not apply to VXEEM options, VXEWZ options and OVX options.
For reference, the existing Volatility Index transactions fees that will apply
• $0.40 per contract for customer transactions;
• $0.40 per contract for voluntary professional transactions;
• $0.40 per contract for professional transactions
• $0.20 per contract for CBOE Market-Maker/DPM transactions;
• $0.25 per contract for Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary transactions;
• $0.40 per contract for broker-dealer transactions;
• $0.10 per contract CFLEX Surcharge Fee;
$0.03 per contract floor brokerage fee;
• $0.015 per contract floor brokerage fee for crossed orders;
• $0.03 per contract par official fee;
• $0.015 per contract for par official fee for crossed orders.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange is excluding VXEEM, VXEWZ and OVX options from the Index License/Surcharge Fee of $0.10 per contract because that fee is assessed to help the Exchange recoup license fees that the Exchange pays to different index licensors in order to list options on the respective indexes. The Exchange does not pay fees to index licensors to list VXEEM, VXEWZ and OVX options. The Exchange is assessing a Product Research & Development/Surcharge fee to all non-public customer transactions (
The Exchange believes that the fees are reasonable because they are comparable to fees that the Exchange currently assesses for another similar volatility index option,
The Exchange believes that the fees are equitable and do not unfairly discriminate because they provide comparable pricing among similar categories of market participants. The Exchange believes that a fee of $0.20 per contract for CBOE Market-Maker/DPM transactions is equitable since those market participants provide a valuable market service by adding liquidity to the Exchange and since they are subject to liquidity provider obligations. This standard rate is not subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale as set forth in Footnote 10 to the Fees Schedule. The Exchange also believes that a fee of $0.25 per contract for Clearing Trading Permit Holders is equitable since they contribute capital to facilitate customer orders, which in turn provides a deeper pool of liquidity that benefits all market participants.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to increase the indication of interest (“IOI”) Tier 1 credit and the Tracking Order Tier 1 credit for ETP Holders and Market Makers. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase the IOI Tier 1 credit
Currently, an IOI Tier 1 credit is offered to each ETP Holder and Market Maker that send IOIs to the Exchange resulting in executions with an average daily share volume (“ADV”) per month greater than or equal to 10 million shares in Tape A, B, and C securities. The credit is $0.0012 per share for each share up to and including 15 million shares and $0.0015 per share for each share in excess of 15 million shares.
The Exchange proposes to amend the IOI Tier 1 credit so that each ETP Holder and Market Maker will receive a credit of $0.0015 per share for all shares if its IOIs result in executions on the Exchange with an ADV per month greater than 15 million shares. The Exchange will continue to provide a $0.0012 credit per share for IOIs sent to the Exchange resulting in executions with an ADV per month up to and including 15 million shares (assuming the 10 million share threshold is met).
For example, under the current Fee Schedule, if an ETP Holder sends IOIs to the Exchange resulting in executions with an ADV per month of 17 million shares, the ETP Holder receives a $0.0012 per share credit for the first 15 million shares and a $0.0015 per share credit for the 2 million shares in excess of the 15 million shares. Under the proposed Fee Schedule, the ETP Holder will receive a $0.0015 per share credit for all 17 million shares.
Currently, the Tracking Order Tier 1 credit is offered to each ETP Holder and Market Maker that sends Tracking Orders to the Exchange resulting in executions with an ADV per month greater than or equal to 5 million shares in Tape A, B, and C securities.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Tracking Order Tier 1 credit so that each ETP Holder and Market Maker will receive a credit of $0.0015 per share for all shares if its Tracking Orders result in executions on the Exchange with an ADV per month greater than 15 million shares. The Exchange will continue to credit ETP Holders $0.0012 per share for Tracking Orders that result in executions up to and including 15 million shares (assuming the 5 million share threshold is met).
For example, under the current Fee Schedule, if an ETP Holder sends Tracking Orders to the Exchange resulting in executions with an ADV per month of 17 million shares, the ETP Holder receives a $0.0012 per share credit for the first 15 million shares and a $0.0015 per share credit for the remaining 2 million shares. Under the proposed Fee Schedule, the ETP Holder will receive a $0.0015 per share credit for all 17 million shares.
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.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to increase the Investor Tier 1 credit for ETP Holders and Market Makers. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase the Investor
Currently, the Investor Tier 1 allows customers to earn a credit of $0.0032 per share for executed orders that provide liquidity to the Book for Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities when they meet all of the following criteria on a monthly basis:
• Maintain a ratio of cancelled orders to total orders of less than 30%. In calculating this ratio, the Exchange will exclude Immediate-or-Cancel orders, which are liquidity removing in nature.
• Maintain a ratio of executed liquidity adding volume to total volume of greater than 80%.
• Firms must add liquidity that represents 0.45% or more of the total US average daily consolidated share volume (“ADV”) per month (volume on days when the market closes early is excluded from the calculation of ADV).
For example, if US ADV is 8.5 billion shares in a given month, the minimum adding ADV requirement for Investor Tier 1 would be 38.25 million adding shares a day.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Investor Tier 1 credit so that each ETP Holder and Market Maker will receive a credit of $0.0033 per share for orders that provide liquidity to the Book when they meet the above criteria on a monthly basis.
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.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule 11.23 entitled “Auctions” to allow orders designated to participate in the opening auction on the Exchange (“Opening Auction”) to participate in an auction in the initial public offering (“IPO”) for a security on the Exchange (“IPO Auction”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange recently proposed and received approval of rules governing auctions conducted on the Exchange for securities listed on the Exchange (“Exchange Auctions”).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend several portions of Rule 11.23 to allow MOO, LOO, and LLOO orders to participate in IPO Auctions. Under the proposal, MOO orders would behave like market orders participating in an IPO Auction currently behave. LOO and LLOO orders would behave like limit orders participating in an IPO Auction currently behave. In order to effect the change, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Eligible Auction Orders for IPO Auctions to include those orders designated to exclusively participate in the Opening Auction. The Exchange also proposes modifications to the definitions of MOO, LOO, and LLOO orders and to make clear that these Opening Auction orders that are not executed as part of the IPO Auction would be cancelled immediately