Agricultural Research Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Engineers Corps
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines. This AD was prompted by a report of a “machined-from-billet” HA-6 carburetor having a loose mixture control sleeve that rotated in the carburetor body causing restriction of fuel and power loss. This AD requires removing certain “machined-from-billet” Volare LLC (formerly Precision Airmotive Corporation, formerly Facet Aerospace Products Company, formerly Marvel-Schebler (BorgWarner)) HA-6 carburetors, inspecting for a loose mixture control sleeve or for a sleeve that may become loose, repairing the carburetor, or replacing the carburetor with one eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, power loss, and reduced control of the airplane.
This AD is effective March 27, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 27, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC, 125 Piedmont Avenue, Gibsonville NC 27249; phone: 336-446-0002; fax: 336-446-0007; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Kevin Brane, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate; 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: 404-474-5582; fax: 404-474-5606; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal and the FAA's response.
One commenter, a private citizen, requested that we incorporate all affected engine models with HA-6 model carburetors installed in the AD. The commenter provided a list, which he compiled from reviewing all applicable published Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS).
We partially agree. We agree that some additional models are affected because the list provided by the commenter is mostly consistent with the applicable TCDS. We do not agree with the commenter on some of the models he thinks are affected, because we could not confirm they are affected, based on the TCDS. However, we determined that we need to change the applicability from a table of specific engine models, to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines with carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of the AD. We changed the AD applicability to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines with carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of the AD.
Since we issued the proposed AD, we found that we referenced the wrong office in the AMOC paragraph. We changed that sentence to state that the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD.
Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC has revised their Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010, to Revision A, dated March 15, 2011. We reviewed Revision A, and determined that it also is acceptable. We changed the incorporated by reference paragraph k of the AD to include the original issue and Revision A.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 10,700 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 0.5 work-hours per aircraft to perform the inspection, and that about 409 carburetors will need repair. Approximately 2 work-hours per carburetor are required to repair the carburetor. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $600 per carburetor. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $769,680. Our estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
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 27, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all Lycoming Engines reciprocating engines with carburetor part numbers listed in Table 1 of this AD.
This AD was prompted by a report of a “machined-from-billet” HA-6 carburetor having a loose mixture control sleeve that rotated in the carburetor body causing restriction of fuel and power loss. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, power loss, and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless already done.
Inspect the carburetor to determine the type of body the carburetor has. Use Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010, or Revision A, dated March 15, 2011, Figure (3) to determine which type of body is used.
(g) If the carburetor has a die-cast body, no further action is required.
(h) If the carburetor has an affected “machined-from-billet” body, remove the carburetor; and replace the carburetor with:
(1) An HA-6 carburetor not listed in Table 1 of this AD; or
(2) An HA-6 carburetor that is listed in Table 1 but is exempted as described in paragraphs 1.A. and 1.B of Marvel-Schebler Emergency SB No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010 or Revision A, dated March 15, 2011; or that has already been repaired using that Emergency SB.
The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Brane, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate; 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5582; fax: (404) 474-5606; email:
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the following service information:
(i) Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin No. SB-18, dated October 14, 2010.
(ii) Marvel-Schebler Emergency Service Bulletin No. SB-18, Revision A, dated March 15, 2011.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Marvel-Schebler Aircraft Carburetors LLC, 125 Piedmont Avenue, Gibsonville, NC 27249; phone: 336-446-0002; fax: 336-446-0007; email:
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport, Bozeman, MT, to accommodate aircraft using Instrument Landing System (ILS) Localizer (LOC) standard instrument approach procedures at Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport. This action also establishes Class E En Route Domestic airspace to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action, initiated by the biennial review of the Bozeman airspace area, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On November 16, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport, Bozeman, MT. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the ILS LOC standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Also, this action establishes Class E En Route Domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to allow vectoring IFR aircraft from En Route airspace to the airport.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates additional controlled airspace at Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport, Bozeman, MT.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 5.4-mile radius of Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 13.5-mile radius of Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport, and within 8 miles northeast and 13 miles southwest of the 316° bearing of the airport extending from the 13.5-mile radius to 24.4 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 50-mile radius of the Bozeman, Gallatin Field Airport; excluding existing lateral limits of controlled airspace 12,000 feet MSL and above.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC February 21, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations, and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On April 28, 2011, the FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal descriptions for V-388 for Airspace Docket No. FAA-2011-0010, Airspace Docket No. 11-AAL-1, as published in the
“From Kenai, AK; INT Kenai 067°and Anchorage, AK, 208° radials; to Anchorage.” instead of “From Anchorage, AK, to INT Anchorage 208°and Kenai, AK, 067° Kenai, AK.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, Colorado Springs, CO. Decommissioning of the Black Forest Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN) has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On November 16, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C airspace area for the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, Colorado Springs, CO. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Black Forest TACAN. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport will be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles northwest and 1.2 miles southeast of the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport 025° bearing extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 8.9 miles northeast, and within 1.4 miles each side of the airport 360° bearing extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 7.7 miles north of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies area navigation (RNAV) route T-288 by extending the route westward from the Rapid City, SD, VORTAC to the Gillette, WY, VOR/DME. This extension enhances the efficiency and safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) by supplementing the existing VOR Federal airway structure in that area.
Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On December 6, 2011, the FAA published in the
In the NPRM, the state designation (WY) for the KARAS intersection was inadvertently omitted from the route description. With the exception of that editorial change, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify RNAV route T-288 by adding a new segment between the Rapid City, SD, VORTAC and the Gillette, WY, VOR/DME. The extension supplements the existing VOR Federal airway structure to provide alternative routing between Gillette and Rapid City in the event of navigation aid outages.
RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9V signed August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet route listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it expands RNAV route coverage to enhance the safe and efficient flow of traffic in the western United States.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations (Docket No. RM09-23-000) which were published in the
S.L. Higginbottom (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Telephone: 202-502-8561, Email:
The final regulations that are the subject of these regulations amended 18 CFR 292.602(c) and affect the Commission's grant of exemption of qualifying small power production facilities and cogeneration facilities from certain Federal and State laws and regulations.
As published, the final regulations contained errors which involved the removal of subparagraphs from 18 CFR 292.602(c)(1). These subparagraphs contain critical information concerning which state laws apply to qualifying small power production facilities and qualifying cogeneration facilities.
Electric power, Electric power plants, Electric utilities.
Accordingly, 18 CFR part 292 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The rates of electric utilities; and
(ii) The financial and organizational regulation of electric utilities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; extension of enforcement discretion.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the period of time that it intends to exercise enforcement discretion concerning the use of the health claim for phytosterols and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), in a manner that is consistent with FDA's February 14, 2003, letter of enforcement discretion to Cargill Health and Food Technologies, until publication of a final rule.
Submit either electronic or written comments by April 23, 2012.
Submit electronic comments to
Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1450.
For the reasons described herein, FDA intends to continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the use of a health claim regarding reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) for phytosterol-containing conventional food and dietary supplements, in a manner that is consistent with FDA's February 14, 2003, letter of enforcement discretion to Cargill Health and Food Technologies, until publication of a final rule.
In the
FDA received a letter, dated January 6, 2003, from Cargill Health and Food Technologies requesting that FDA issue a letter stating its intention not to enforce certain requirements in the IFR. The letter cited new scientific evidence and comments submitted to FDA in the plant sterol/stanol esters health claim rulemaking in support of extending the authorized health claim to all forms and sources of phytosterols and product forms that might effectively reduce blood cholesterol levels. In response to the letter submitted by Cargill and other comments received to the IFR, we issued a letter of enforcement discretion on February 14, 2003 (the 2003 letter) (Ref. 1). In the letter, we explained that we would consider exercising enforcement discretion, pending publication of the final rule, with respect to certain requirements of the health claim. Specifically, we stated we would consider such discretion with regard to the use of the claim in the labeling of a phytosterol-containing food, including foods other than those specified in § 101.83(c)(2)(iii)(A) (21 CFR 101.83(c)(2)(iii)(A)), if: (1) The food contains at least 400 milligrams (mg) per RACC of phytosterols; (2) mixtures of phytosterol substances (i.e., mixtures of sterols and stanols) contain at least 80-percent beta-sitosterol, campesterol, stigmasterol, sitostanol, and campestanol (combined weight); (3) the food meets the requirements of § 101.83(c)(2)(iii)(B) through (c)(2)(iii)(D); (4) products containing phytosterols, including mixtures of sterols and stanols in free (non-esterified) forms, use a collective term in lieu of the terms required by § 101.83(c)(2)(i)(D) in the health claim to describe the substance (e.g., “plant sterols” or “phytosterol”); (5) the claim specifies that the daily dietary intake of phytosterols that may reduce the risk of CHD is 800 mg or more per day, expressed as the weight of free Phytosterol; (6) vegetable oils for home use that exceed the total fat disqualifying level can bear the health claim along with a disclosure statement that complies with § 101.13(h); and (7) the use of the claim otherwise complies with § 101.83. Thus, the 2003 letter described intended enforcement discretion with respect to: (1) Different forms and mixtures of phytosterols in a wider variety of products and (2) the use of the claim on foods containing lower levels of phytosterols than set forth in the IFR.
In the
We stated in the 2010 proposed rule for phytosterols and the risk of CHD health claim that, pending publication of a final rule, FDA intends to consider the exercise of its enforcement discretion on a case-by-case basis when a health claim regarding phytosterols and CHD is made in a manner that is consistent with the proposed rule (75 FR 76526 at 76546).
The 2010 proposed rule also stated that, beginning 75 days after the date of publication of the proposed rule (February 21, 2011), FDA did not intend to exercise its enforcement discretion based on the 2003 letter (75 FR 76526 at 76546). We stated that starting on February 21, 2011, all products bearing the health claim would have to be in compliance with § 101.83, or if health claims were made in a manner consistent with the proposed rule, we would consider exercising enforcement discretion pending publication of a final rule.
In the 2010 proposed rule, we proposed to make several changes to the requirements for the nature of the food eligible to bear the claim that differ from the requirements in current § 101.83 and from the basis for enforcement discretion in the 2003 letter. Among other changes, FDA proposed to increase the amount of phytosterols that must be present in the food product from 0.4 to 0.5 g of phytosterols per RACC and to only allow the use of the claim in dietary supplements containing the esterified form of phytosterols. In addition, we proposed that a conventional food would be eligible to bear the claim if it is the subject of a GRAS notification to which FDA had no further questions.
After publication of the proposed rule, we received requests from industry to extend the 75-day period from the date of publication of the proposed rule for the exercise of FDA enforcement discretion based on the 2003 letter. We subsequently issued a notice in the
In the February 18, 2011 notice, FDA stated that it intended to exercise enforcement discretion until February 21, 2012, with respect to the use of a claim regarding reduced risk of CHD in the labeling of a phytosterol-containing food, including foods other than those specified in § 101.83(c)(2)(iii)(A), based on the factors set forth in the 2003 letter for the use of such claim in the labeling of food. FDA also stated that the February 18, 2011 notice did not change how we intend to consider exercising our enforcement discretion when claims are made consistent with the proposed requirements in the proposed rule, and that our decision to extend the period of time during which we would consider the exercise of our enforcement discretion only related to FDA's enforcement discretion based on the 2003 letter.
Since publication of the February 18, 2011, notice, we have received two
Based on the new data and information currently under our review that may be important, to our consideration in deciding what requirements to include in the final rule, and the need to focus FDA's resources on other public health priorities, we find it appropriate to continue to extend our consideration of the exercise of enforcement discretion for the labeling of foods, including dietary supplements, bearing a health claim regarding phytosterols and risk of CHD consistent with the 2003 letter, until publication of the final rule.
Therefore, FDA is extending the period during which it intends to exercise enforcement discretion, consistent with the factors set forth in the 2003 letter, until publication of a final rule for the phytosterols and risk of CHD health claim. This document does not change how FDA intends to consider exercising its enforcement discretion when claims are made consistent with the proposed requirements in the proposed rule. Food, including dietary supplements, bearing the health claim would be required to comply with any revised requirements established in the final rule when the final rule becomes effective.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations (TD 9571), which were published in the
This correction is effective on February 21, 2012, and is applicable on January 17, 2012.
Jeffrey L. Parry, (202) 622-3850 (not a toll-free call).
The temporary regulations (TD 9571) that are the subject of these corrections are under section 864 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the temporary regulations contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(l)
(i)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9567), which were published in the
Joseph S. Henderson, (202) 622-3880 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on December 19, 2011 (76 FR 78561), final regulation (TD 9567), contains errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) * * * See § 1.6038D-5T(f) for rules to determine the maximum value of an interest in a foreign trust or estate.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(a) * * *
(9) The foreign currency exchange rate and, if the source of such rate is other than as described in § 1.6038D-5T(c)(1), the source of the rate used to determine the specified foreign financial asset's U.S. dollar value, including maximum value; and
(c) * * *
(1)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Form 8621, “Return by a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund”;
(b)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Final rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9567), which were published in the
Joseph S. Henderson, (202) 622-3880 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on December 19, 2011 (76 FR 78553), final regulation (TD 9567) contains errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of correction.
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 9567), which were the subject of FR Doc. 2011-32263, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 78557, the first column, in the preamble, in paragraph (J), line 7 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “Investment Company or a Qualified” is corrected to read “Investment Company or Qualified”.
2. On page 78557, the third column, in the preamble, lines one and two in the first paragraph of paragraph (C) the language “Except as described in sections 5(D) and 5(E) of this explanation, for” is corrected to read “Except as described in sections 4(D) and 4(E) of this explanation, for”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that prescribe the source of income received on a qualified fails charge under section 863 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The regulations finalize proposed regulations and withdraw temporary regulations published on December 8, 2010, and affect persons that pay or are entitled to receive qualified fails charges, including withholding agents.
Karen Walny, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International) (202) 622-3870 (not a toll free call).
In response to persistent delivery failures in delivery-versus-payment transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities (Treasuries), the Treasury Market Practices Group (TMPG) and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association published a trading practice governing failed deliveries of Treasuries in 2008. In July, 2009, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2009-61 (2009-2 CB 181), which provided that the IRS will not challenge the position taken by a taxpayer or a withholding agent that a fails charge paid with respect to a Treasury on or before December 31, 2010 is not subject to U.S. gross basis taxation. On December 8, 2010, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations that establish source rules for a fails charge paid with respect to a Treasury, with a correction to the temporary regulations on December 28, 2010. 75 FR 76262, 75 FR 76321, and 75 FR 81457, respectively.
The temporary and proposed regulations provide that the source of income from a qualified fails charge is generally determined by reference to the residence of the taxpayer that is the recipient of the qualified fails charge income, with two exceptions. Qualified fails charge income earned by a qualified business unit (QBU) of a taxpayer is sourced to the country in which the QBU is engaged in a trade or business, and qualified fails charge income that arises from a transaction the income from which is effectively connected to a United States trade or business is sourced in the United States and treated as effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business.
No comments were received on the proposed regulations, and no hearing was requested or held. This Treasury decision adopts the proposed regulations with the changes discussed in this preamble.
These final regulations adopt, with one substantive change, the proposed regulations on the source of a qualified fails charge. The final regulations also make a number of clarifying changes to the language of the regulations.
The preamble to the temporary regulations noted that no trading practice existed at that time for fails charges on securities other than Treasuries, but that if a fails charge trading practice pertaining to other securities was endorsed by the TMPG or an agency of the United States government, the Treasury Department and the IRS would consider whether the source rule in the regulations should be extended to those fails charges. The TMPG has subsequently endorsed a trading practice for debentures issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Federal Home Loan Banks and agency pass-through mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (Agency Debt and Agency MBS, respectively) beginning in February, 2012.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the same source rule should apply to fails charges incurred with respect to Agency Debt and Agency MBS as to fails charges on Treasuries. Accordingly, these final regulations expand the scope of a qualified fails charge to fails charges paid with respect to Agency Debt. The sourcing rule in the final regulations also applies to a fails charge on Agency MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae (for tax purposes, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae do not issue Agency MBS). The final regulations do not address the source of any other payment, including a fails charge that is not a qualified fails charge.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether separate guidance is needed on the source of income attributable to certain payments, other than qualified fails charges, that arise in securities lending transactions or repurchase transactions and request comments regarding this issue.
These regulations are effective on February 21, 2012.
These regulations apply to a qualified fails charge paid or accrued on or after December 8, 2010.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to
The principal author of these regulations is Karen Walny, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other persons from the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International) and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 863(a) and 7805 * * *
(a)
(b)
(1) The taxpayer's residence, determined under section 988(a)(3)(B)(i), is the United States;
(2) The qualified business unit's residence, determined under section 988(a)(3)(B)(ii), is outside the United States;
(3) The qualified business unit is engaged in the conduct of a trade or business in the country where it is a resident; and
(4) The transaction to which the qualified fails charge relates is attributable to the qualified business unit. A transaction will be treated as attributable to a qualified business unit if it satisfies the principles of § 1.864-4(c)(5)(iii) (substituting “qualified business unit” for “U.S. office”).
(c)
(d)
(1) Compensates a party to a transaction that provides for delivery of a designated security (as defined in paragraph (e) of this section) in exchange for the payment of cash (delivery-versus-payment settlement) for another party's failure to deliver the specified designated security on the settlement date specified in the relevant agreement; and
(2) Is made pursuant to—
(i) A trading practice or similar guidance approved or adopted by either an agency of the United States government or the Treasury Market Practices Group, or
(ii) Any trading practice, program, policy or procedure approved by the Commissioner in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.
(e)
(i) Debt instrument (as defined in § 1.1275-1(d)) issued by the United States Treasury Department, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or any Federal Home Loan Bank; or
(ii) Pass-through mortgage-backed security guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or the Government National Mortgage Association.
(g)
In rule document 2011-29385 appearing on pages 70640-70644 the issue of Tuesday, November 15, 2011 make the following correction:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Kinnickinnic River due to the petroleum cleanup efforts. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the removal of petroleum product from this area of the Kinnickinnic River.
This rule is effective in the CFR on February 21, 2012. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement at 7 a.m. on January 30, 2012. This rule will remain in effect through 7 a.m. on March 1, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0067 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, contact or email BM1 Adam Kraft, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, at 414-747-7148 or
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when an agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under U.S.C. 553 (b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the dangers presented by the containment and cleanup of petroleum product are immediate and do not allow time for a notice and comment period. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in that it would prevent the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels on navigable waters from the aforementioned hazards.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On January 23, 2012 it was discovered that a large amount of jet fuel is entering the Kinnickinnic River from an underground fuel leak in the vicinity of the airport in Milwaukee, WI. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that the containment and cleanup poses a serious risk of injury to persons and property within this area of the river.
Because of the aforesaid hazards, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, has determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect the public. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Kinnickinnic River between the West Becher Street Bridge located at 43°00′37″ N 087°54′51″ W and the First street bridge located at 43°00′30″ N 087°54′41″ W (NAD 83). This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. on January 30, 2012 until 7 a.m. on March 1, 2012.
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone will be in effect along a portion of the river, given the time of year that has minimal traffic. Moreover, the most prominent marine commercial company in the area has been notified of the situation and it has chosen to use an alternate mooring.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor on a portion of Kinnickinnic River between 7 a.m. on January 30, 2012 and 7 a.m. on March 1, 2012.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel traffic will be minimal due to the time of year and the location of the safety zone.
In the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of The Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction.
A final environmental analysis checklist and categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.
(3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be on land
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in support of the Mavericks Surf Competition. This temporary safety zone will establish a temporary safety zone in vicinity of Pillar Point in the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay, California. The regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in vicinity of Pillar Point and prohibit vessels not participating in the surfing event from entering the dedicated surfing area and the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar Point. This regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the surfing competition.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1146 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade DeCarol Davis (415) 399-7443, or email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the surf conditions during the 2012 Mavericks Invitational surf competition, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The 2012 Mavericks Invitational is a one day “Big Wave” surfing competition consisting of the top 24 big wave surfers and only occurs when 15-20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are combined with mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10 knots. The rock and reef ridges that make up the sea floor of the Pillar Point area combined with optimal weather conditions create the large waves that Mavericks is known for. Due to the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar Point at the time of the surfing competition, the Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in vicinity of Pillar Point that restricts navigation in the area of the surf competition and in neighboring hazardous areas.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone associated with the 2012 Mavericks Invitational surf competition. The 2012 Mavericks Invitational will take place on a day that presents favorable surf conditions between 7 a.m. Monday January 23, 2012 and 3 p.m. Saturday March 31, 2012. The 2012 Mavericks Invitational can only occur when 15-20 foot waves are sustained for over 24 hours and are combined with mild easterly winds of no more than 5-10 knots. Unpredictable weather patterns and the event's narrow operating window limit the Coast Guard's ability to notify the public of the event. The Coast Guard will issue notice of the event as soon as practicable, and no later than 24 hours prior via the Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The 2012 Mavericks Invitational will occur on the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay in vicinity of Pillar Point. The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary safety zone bounded by a line connecting the following coordinates in the order they appear: 37°29′23″ N, 122°30′04″ W; 37°29′15″ N, 122°30′10″ W; 37°29′17″ N, 122°30′30″ W; 37°29′36″ N, 122°30′16″ W; 37°29′23″ N, 122°30′04″ W; 37°29′36″ N, 122°29′21″ W; 37°29′13″ N, 122°29′25″ W; 37°29′15″ N, 122°29′58″ W; 37°29′23″ N, 122°30′04″ W (NAD 83).
The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of Pillar Point while the 2012 Mavericks Invitational is taking place. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from transiting through, anchoring, blocking, or loitering in the safety zone without permission of the COTP or PATCOM. Vessels desiring to enter or operate in the safety zone shall do so with COTP or PATCOM permission via VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center telephone at (415) 399-3547.
This safety zone is needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance away from the event participants and the hazardous waters surrounding Pillar
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
Although this rule regulates navigation in the waters encompassed by the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant. The entities most likely to be affected are fishing vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. In addition, the rule will only regulate navigation for a limited time. Finally, the Public Broadcast Notice to Mariners will notify the users of local waterway to ensure that the regulated area will result in minimum impact.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although this rule may affect owners and operators of fishing vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel traffic can pass safely around the area; (iii) vessels engaged in commercial and recreational activities have ample space outside of the affected areas of Half Moon Bay, CA to engage in these activities; and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this regulated area via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, which applies to regulations establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas, safety zones or security zones.
An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or PATCOM to obtain permission. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or PATCOM. Persons or vessels mayrequest permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center telephone at (415)-399-3547.
(4) The COTP, or PATCOM as the designated representative of the COTP, may control the movement of all vessels operating on the navigable waters of Half Moon Bay when the COTP has determined that such orders are justified in the interest of safety by reason of weather, visibility, sea conditions, temporary port congestion, and other temporary hazardous circumstances. When hailed or signaled by PATCOM, the hailed vessel must come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in additional operating restrictions, citation for failure to comply, or both.
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The National Park Service is amending special regulations for Cape Cod National Seashore that authorize hunting to allow for a spring season hunt for Eastern Wild Turkey. The Final Rule implements the Record of Decision for the Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program Environmental Impact Statement of August 2007.
This rule is effective March 22, 2012.
Craig Thatcher, Acting Chief Ranger, 99 Marconi Site Road Wellfleet, MA 02667; 508-957-0735.
In 1961 Congress established Cape Cod National Seashore (Seashore). In establishing the Seashore, Congress directed that the unique flora and fauna, the physiographic conditions, and the historic sites and structures of the area be permanently preserved; authorized the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to provide for the public enjoyment and understanding of the unique natural, historic, and scientific features of the Seashore be facilitated by establishing trails, observation points, exhibits and services for the public, and provided that adaptable portions of the Seashore may be managed for camping, swimming, boating, sailing, hunting, fishing, and other activities of similar nature. Public Law 87-126, Sec. 7 (Aug. 7, 1961).
The Seashore comprises 43,608 acres of shoreline; salt marshes; clear, deep, freshwater kettle ponds; and uplands; as well as a great diversity of species supported by these habitats. Lighthouses, a life-saving station, dune shacks, modern and Cape Cod-style houses, cultural landscapes, and wild
The 1961 legislation establishing the Seashore authorized the Secretary, acting through the National Park Service (NPS), to permit hunting.
The Secretary may permit hunting and fishing, including shellfishing, on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the seashore in such areas and under such regulations as he may prescribe during open seasons prescribed by applicable local, State and Federal law. The Secretary shall consult with officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and any political subdivision thereof who have jurisdiction of hunting and fishing, including shellfishing, prior to the issuance of any such regulations, and the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative arrangements with such officials regarding such hunting and fishing, including shellfishing, as he may deem desirable.* * *
The final rule increases hunting opportunities by expanding the hunting season to include a spring turkey hunt. Hunting within the Seashore that is authorized by NPS regulations is conducted in accordance with Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) regulations. Currently authorized hunting in the Seashore is limited to deer, upland game, and migratory waterfowl. Although the Eastern Wild Turkey is managed as a native upland game bird by the MDFW, the current special regulation for hunting within the Seashore prohibits all hunting from March 1 through August 31. This rule change is necessary because the Massachusetts spring turkey season generally takes place from late April to mid or late May when hunting is prohibited by the Seashore's current special regulation. Fall turkey hunting could also be initiated if MDFW established such a season in the Cape Cod zone, but no rule change would be needed for a fall turkey hunt since the State does not conduct hunting before September 1.
For many years, the Seashore cooperated with the MDFW to release ring-necked pheasants within the Seashore to provide a pheasant hunt. In 2002, the Seashore was sued for failure to follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to the hunting program. In September 2003, the U.S. District Court ordered the Seashore to prepare a NEPA environmental assessment of the hunting program. The court also enjoined the pheasant hunt until the Seashore completed the NEPA assessment.
As a result of the court order, the Seashore initiated and completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and Record of Decision (ROD), on the Seashore's hunting program. The chosen alternative as documented by the ROD, was Alternative B—Develop a Modified Hunting Program.
Through Alternative B, the Seashore seeks to increase hunting opportunities for native upland game bird species by establishing a turkey season generally consistent with MDFW regulations and making ancillary improvements to upland game bird habitat. The alternative phases out pheasant stocking and hunting through adaptive management actions aimed at improving the availability of native upland game bird species. Hunting areas will be consolidated and clearly delineated and educational outreach concerning hunting will be expanded to hunting and non-hunting users. The NPS and MDFW will cooperatively monitor and manage game and other species. The FEIS and ROD may be reviewed at:
The NPS published a proposed rule on March 22, 2011, and accepted public comments through April 21, 2011. Comments were accepted through the mail, hand delivery, and through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Seven comments were received from individuals. Of these, two came from the same person. Two of the remaining individual comments were very similar in context and point, but did not contain the name(s) of the person(s) that sent them.
Three comments were received from organizations: the Cranberry County Longbeards Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation; the Barnstable County League of Sportsman's Clubs, Inc.; and the Bass River Rod and Gun Club, Inc. One comment was from the agency that manages hunting in Massachusetts, the MDFW.
Two individual comments expressed general support for establishing a spring turkey season at the Seashore that was consistent with the MDFW program, but also recognized that the Seashore season and the State season were separately managed. Two individual comments supported the spring turkey season based on reducing motor vehicle and turkey conflicts on Route 6, a well travelled State highway that runs through the Seashore.
The comments received from the three organizations supported establishing a spring turkey season at the Seashore. These comments also suggested there should be:
• Consistency between the Seashore and MDFW regulations,
• A youth turkey hunt similar to the State youth hunt,
• Flexibility in the rule for the Seashore to adjust to any changes MDFW makes with the spring turkey season, and
• No extra geographic restraints in the Seashore spring turkey season that might create a high hunter density.
The MDFW made similar suggestions and also expressed concern about the possible need for a hunter to have a permit issued by the Seashore in addition to their State hunting license and turkey stamp.
The Seashore's hunting FEIS evaluated a turkey hunting season that was consistent with the MDFW regulations. The Seashore's hunting program has generally followed the MDFW program, with additional provisions or restrictions as necessary to meet park objectives and NPS policies. The Seashore regards MDFW as a key expert agency with State and region-wide perspective that is important for determining hunting seasons, bag limits, and other elements of a sound hunting program. Accordingly, management of hunting at the Seashore will be accomplished through close coordination between the Seashore and MDFW. The Seashore has adopted many of the MDFW regulations without additional restrictions, although the ultimate responsibility for developing and managing an appropriate hunting program for the Seashore rests with the NPS.
The existing special regulation utilizes 36 CFR 1.5, Closures and public use limits, to designate appropriate locations where hunting is allowed and to impose reasonable limits or restrictions necessary to address park specific issues such as resource
For similar reasons, NPS has deleted the reference to management activities and objectives “such as those described in the Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program/Final Environmental Impact Statement” from § 7.67(f)(5)(ii) in this final rule.Although the FEIS will continue to be an important guiding document, the Seashore will gain knowledge and experience each season that will inform the ongoing management process, and accordingly some flexibility is necessary.
For example, when the FEIS (July 2007) and ROD (September 2007), were completed, the MDFW had a two-week spring turkey hunting season, starting at the end of April and ending in early May. The FEIS and ROD statements of being “consistent with” the State season and expanding the Seashore's hunting season to accommodate the State's spring turkey hunt was written in the context of the two-week season. Since that date, the State has expanded its spring turkey season from two to four weeks, ending in late May. Due to possible user conflicts that may arise in late May, the Seashore Superintendent, using discretionary authority of the rule, will set the closing date of the season. The Seashore will strive to be consistent with the MDFW's turkey season dates to avoid confusion. However, the Superintendent will have the discretion to adjust the Seashore's opening and closings dates based on factors such as safety, use patterns, and the public interest.
To authorize and manage hunting activities compatible with their land management concerns, other federal and Commonwealth facilities within Massachusetts, such as the Massachusetts Military Reservation, have different rules and different dates than the dates/times established by the MDFW. The Superintendent's discretion in this case would be similar to such established practice. The public will be notified of the spring turkey hunt opening and closing dates and other special conditions for the Seashore hunting program, all of which will also be published in the Superintendent's Compendium.
Affording the Seashore Superintendent this discretion provides the flexibility suggested by the three organizations and the MDFW to allow for accommodation of future changes in the State's program (provided the changes fall within the scope of discretion authorized by this regulation) without further rulemaking. For example, MDFW currently has a special youth turkey hunt, which is allowed on a specific day, as part of its spring turkey season. The Seashore may consider, and this rulemaking accommodates, the possibility of incorporating a youth turkey hunt into the Seashore's program in the future. Consideration of the youth turkey hunt component may be entertained after the Seashore has implemented and evaluated the regular spring turkey hunt.
The ROD directed that: “[t]urkey hunting within [the Seashore] will be a controlled hunt requiring a permit, limiting the number of hunters, and likely managed through a lottery system.” Accordingly, to control issues such as hunter density for safety, this rule provides that the Seashore will manage the turkey hunt through permits. A person seeking the turkey hunting permit must present a driver's license, vehicle registration and Massachusetts State Hunting license with turkey stamp to ensure compliance with MDFW turkey hunt legal requirements and to verify the identity of the applicant. Seashore hunters should understand that some areas where hunting has previously been allowed might be closed to hunting during the spring turkey season for safety reasons.
After review and analysis of the public comments, NPS has:
• Deleted the word “temporarily” in paragraph (f)(5)(ii), for the reasons discussed in the previous section;
• Deleted the reference to activities and objectives “such as those described in the Cape Cod National Seashore Hunting Program/Final Environmental Impact Statement” in paragraph (f)(5)(ii), for the reasons discussed in the previous section; and
• Added the terms “limitations, restrictions * * * or other hunting related designations” to the public notification requirements for closures in paragraph (f)(6) to clarify that the requirement applies to all such actions.
This document is not a significant rule and the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This is an agency specific rule.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user-fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The rule meets the requirements of the NPS general regulations at 36 CFR 2.2(b)(2).
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The rule will not impose restrictions on business in the local communities in the form of fees, record keeping or other requirements that would increase costs.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically this rule:
(a) Meets the requirements of section 3(a) requiring all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 we have evaluated this rule and determined that it has no potential effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by OMB under the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule implements a portion of a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Seashore formally initiated the NEPA process on June 21, 2004 by publishing in the
A series of public and agency scoping meetings followed to solicit input on hunting in the park from American Indian tribes, Federal and State agencies and local towns, the public, and interested groups. Using the information gathered during the scoping process, the Seashore prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for public review and comment. The comment period opened on April 21, 2006, with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
Two public meetings were held during the 60-day review period to receive oral comment. The availability of the Draft EIS and the dates and times of the public meetings were also publicized through a second NOA published by the NPS in the
Completion of the FEIS was noticed in the
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The primary authors of this regulation were Craig Thatcher, Acting Chief Ranger, Cape Cod National Seashore; Robin Lepore, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior; Russel J. Wilson, Chief Regulations and Special Park Uses, National Park Service; and, A.J. North, Regulations Coordinator, National Park Service.
National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under 36 U.S.C. 501-511, DC Code 10-137 (2001) and DC Code 50-2201 (2001).
(f)
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, hunting is permitted in accordance with § 2.2 of this chapter.
(3) Only deer, upland game (including Eastern Wild Turkey), and migratory waterfowl may be hunted.
(4) Hunting is prohibited from March 1st through August 31st each year, except for the taking of Eastern Wild Turkey as designated by the Superintendent.
(5) The Superintendent may:
(i) Require permits and establish conditions for hunting; and
(ii) Limit, restrict, or terminate hunting access or activities after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives.
(6) The public will be notified of such limitations, restrictions, closures, or other hunting related designations through one or more methods listed in § 1.7(a) of this chapter.
(7) Violating a closure, designation, use or activity restriction or a term or
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2953.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule.
The Coast Guard is amending the interim rule addressing lifesaving equipment to harmonize Coast Guard regulations for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses with recently adopted international standards affecting capacity requirements for such lifesaving equipment.
This interim rule is effective March 22, 2012. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule effective March 22, 2012.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0048 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, email or call Ms. Jacqueline Yurkovich, Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-5214), Coast Guard; email
On August 31, 2010, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Lifesaving Equipment: Production Testing and Harmonization With International Standards” in the
The Coast Guard is charged with ensuring that lifesaving equipment used on vessels subject to inspection by the United States meets specific design, construction, and performance standards, including those found in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, (SOLAS), Chapter III “Life-saving appliances and arrangements.”
The Coast Guard's specific standards for inflatable liferafts are found in 46 CFR part 160, subparts 160.151 (Inflatable Liferafts (SOLAS)) and 160.051 (Inflatable Liferafts for Domestic Service). The Coast Guard's specific standards for inflatable buoyant apparatuses are found in 46 CFR part 160, subpart 160.010 (Buoyant Apparatus for Merchant Vessels). Current subpart 160.151 satisfies SOLAS requirements, and current subparts 160.051 and 160.010 require compliance with the standards in subpart 160.151, with some specifically listed exceptions.
Subpart 160.151 implements SOLAS requirements by incorporating by reference the IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS. The primary IMO standards referenced by Chapter III of SOLAS are the “Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances” (Recommendation on Testing), IMO Resolution MSC.81(70), and the “International Life-saving Appliance Code” (LSA Code), IMO Resolution MSC.48(66). The IMO updates these standards by adopting MSC resolutions promulgating amendments to these standards.
In the 2011 interim rule, the Coast Guard revised subpart 160.151 to, among other things, update the version of the Recommendation on Testing incorporated by reference, and incorporate by reference for the first time the LSA Code. Subpart 160.151-5(d)(3) and (4) of Title 46 of the CFR incorporate by reference the LSA Code (as amended up through resolutions MSC.207(81), MSC.218(82), and MSC.272(85)), and the Recommendation on Testing (as amended up through resolutions MSC.226(82) and MSC.274(85)). Subparts 160.051 and 160.010 retain, with some specifically listed exceptions, the requirement for compliance with the standards in subpart 160.151, which will now also include the updated versions of the Recommendation on Testing and the LSA Code.
IMO recently adopted two new MSC resolutions further amending the LSA Code and the Recommendation on Testing: “Adoption of Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code” (MSC.293(87)) and “Adoption of Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances” (MSC.295(87)).
Resolution MSC.293(87) amends the LSA Code and entered into force on January 1, 2012. This resolution increases the assumed average mass of liferaft occupants from 75 kg to 82.5 kg for inflatable liferaft design and approval testing purposes.
Resolution MSC.295(87) amends the Recommendation on Testing and also entered into force on January 1, 2012. This resolution specifies revisions necessary to account for this assumed average mass increase with respect to certain existing tests. The tests required by the Recommendation on Testing, Part 1 (Prototype Tests), significantly affected by Resolution MSC.295(87), are: The jump test, loading and seating test, davit-launched liferaft boarding test, damage test, righting test, and davit-launched inflatable liferaft strength tests.
Based on these amendments, the Coast Guard is revising the regulations modified by the 2011 interim rule to include the increased average mass of liferaft occupants and to require liferaft performance under subpart 160.151 to comply with the revisions to tests necessitated by the occupant weight increase. This revision to subpart 160.151 will also, by extension, affect liferaft performance under subpart 160.051 and inflatable buoyant apparatus performance under subpart 160.010.
In this new interim rule, the Coast Guard is revising § 160.151-5(d) to incorporate by reference Resolution MSC.293(87) and Resolution MSC.295(87), and revising all references to the LSA Code and Recommendation on Testing to include the newly incorporated by reference Resolutions. References to the LSA Code will become “LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87),” and references to the Recommendation on Testing will become “Revised recommendation on testing, as amended by Resolution MSC.295(87).” These revisions will affect the tests in §§ 160.151-27, 160.151-29, 160.151-31, and 160.151-57, which refer to the Recommendation on Testing. A complete discussion of these changes is available in the SNPRM, published October 11, 2011. 76 FR 62714.
The Coast Guard received one comment in response to the SNPRM. The comment addresses the Coast Guard's expanded use of qualified independent laboratories, instead of Coast Guard inspectors, during the approval process and for production inspections of certain types of lifesaving equipment. This comment is beyond the scope of the SNPRM and this interim rule, which addresses the increase in occupant mass for SOLAS life rafts based on two new IMO Resolutions only. The Coast Guard sought public comment in the 2010 NPRM on the Coast Guard's proposal regarding expanded use of independent laboratories, and finalized that proposal in the 2011 interim rule. As stated in the 2011 interim rule, the Coast Guard still finds the use of independent laboratories in the Coast Guard's approval process to be “the most effective manner” of executing and carrying out its obligations under 46 U.S.C. section 3306. See the discussion regarding the use of independent labs to perform these inspections in III.B “Independent Laboratories” in the Preamble of the interim rule published on October 11, 2011. The Coast Guard did not make any changes to the regulations in response to this comment.
In this interim rule, the Coast Guard is making non-substantive changes to the citations for the IMO resolutions incorporated by reference. The changes update the citations for IMO resolutions to make them easier to identify and to obtain copies. These citation updates have not changed the IMO resolutions or the versions of the IMO resolutions from the SNPRM to the interim rule.
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 46 CFR 160.151-5 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect this material at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters where indicated under
The Coast Guard developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below the Coast Guard summarizes these analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the 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. This interim rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the interim rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Coast Guard received no comments that altered our assessment of impacts in the SNPRM. We have found no additional data or information that changed our findings in the NPRM. We have adopted the assessment in the SNPRM for this rule as final.
The SNPRM is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. A summary of the analysis follows: This interim rule addresses the change in the international standard for occupant weight used in testing equipment to establish the rated capacity of inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses. This interim rule revises the occupant weight or “assumed average occupant mass” from the current 75 kg to the new weight standard of 82.5 kg.
The Coast Guard issues a Certificate of Approval for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses under the applicable subpart in 46 CFR part 160 after successful testing of those appliances by their manufacturers. A Certificate of Approval specifies the number of occupants (or rated capacity) for which the inflatable liferaft or inflatable buoyant apparatus is designed and has been successfully tested, and the Certificate must be renewed every 5 years. New testing is not required to renew a current Certificate, but new approval requests require testing before a Certificate can be issued.
While this interim rule requires manufacturers to conduct prototype and production tests for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses manufactured on or after March 22, 2012 using the new occupant weight standard, it would limit re-testing of currently approved equipment, thus limiting the cost impact on manufacturers. And, as discussed in section IV.
As shown in Table 1 above, manufacturers of SOLAS inflatable liferafts approved under subpart 160.151 (SOLAS liferafts) and manufactured on or after March 22, 2012 are allowed the option of either re-testing using the new occupant weight standard or requesting certification for a lower rated occupancy (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard) based on the certification testing submitted for their current approval.
The principal cost impact for manufacturers of SOLAS liferafts will be for currently approved inflatable liferafts whose rated capacity is six using the current 75 kg occupant weight standard. Since SOLAS requires that inflatable liferafts have a minimum capacity of six, any SOLAS liferaft currently approved for six occupants will have to be re-tested under the new occupant weight standard in order to retain approval.
Currently, there are 10 manufacturers that produce 109 models of SOLAS liferafts. Of these, there are 11 liferaft models (from eight manufacturers) whose rated capacity is six (Table 2). These 11 models will be required to re-test to maintain their SOLAS certification. Three of these eight manufacturers are U.S. firms and they each produce one model of inflatable liferaft with a rated occupancy of six occupants. Of those three models, one model is designed primarily for use in aircraft under a Federal Aviation Administration approval number. The three models produced by U.S. firms and the eight models manufactured by foreign firms will have to be re-tested in order to verify a minimum occupancy rating under the new occupant weight standard to be used on SOLAS vessels. From estimates obtained from industry, we estimate the costs of re-testing for compliance with the new occupant weight standard at $1,800 for each model.
We estimate the total cost to industry to re-test all current SOLAS liferaft models as $19,800 ($14,400 for foreign manufacturers and $5,400 for U.S.-owned manufacturers). See Table 2 below.
As shown earlier in Table 1, manufacturers of domestic service inflatable liferafts under subpart 160.051 (domestic service liferafts) and inflatable buoyant apparatuses under subpart 160.010 manufactured on or after March 22, 2012 under current Certificates of Approval, have the option of using either the old 75 kg or the new 82.5 kg occupant weight standard. If a manufacturer of domestic service liferafts or a manufacturer of inflatable buoyant apparatuses with current Certificates of Approval chooses to use the new occupant weight standard, it also has the option of either re-testing using the new occupant weight standard or requesting re-certification for a lower number of occupants (adjusted for the new occupant weight standard). Manufacturers of domestic inflatable liferafts under subpart 160.051 or inflatable buoyant apparatuses under 160.010 are required to use the new occupant weight standard only when testing domestic inflatable liferafts or
In terms of the cost of the regulation:
1. While prototype testing for all SOLAS liferafts on or after March 22, 2012, will have to employ the new occupant weight standard, there is no additional cost in performing the required tests due to the change in the testing weight because the nature of the test remains the same.
2. Production testing of all SOLAS liferafts manufactured on or after March 22, 2012 will require testing using the new occupant weight standard. As with prototype testing, there is no additional cost in performing the required tests due to the change in the testing weight because the nature of the test remains the same.
3. For production testing of SOLAS liferafts, the manufacturer may either request a certification with a lower maximum occupancy based on the new occupant weight standard or re-test the equipment for certification of its current rated capacity using the new occupant weight standard.
4. The 11 models (three models made by U.S. manufacturers) of SOLAS inflatable liferafts whose current rated capacity is six occupants, would have to verify that they meet the minimum SOLAS requirements for a capacity of six occupants at the new occupant weight standard if they wish to continue their current SOLAS approval status.
5. For both prototype and production testing of domestic service inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses approved by the Coast Guard prior to March 22, 2012 the manufacturer may test under either the 75 kg or the 82.5 kg occupant weight standard with no change to testing based on the new occupant weight standard.
6. For prototype and production testing of domestic service inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses approved on or after March 22, 2012 the manufacturer must test under the 82.5 kg occupant weight standard.
For inflatable liferafts approved under subpart 160.051 prior to March 22, 2012 and inflatable buoyant apparatuses approved under subpart 160.010 prior to March 22, 2012, the cost of testing equipment at the higher occupant weight standard is voluntary, as domestic liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses may be certified using either occupant weight standard. Likewise, equipment manufactured under a current Certificate of Approval is required to be re-tested only if the manufacturer elects to retain their current rated capacity for their equipment under the higher occupant weight standard. However, manufacturers have the option to reduce the current rated capacities of their equipment to comply with the new occupant weight standard, provided that the resulting capacity does not conflict with the minimum required capacity applicable to that equipment.
Prototype and production testing of all SOLAS liferafts approved under subpart 160.151 is required using the higher 82.5 kg occupant weight standard. The Coast Guard has no evidence to suggest that testing at the higher occupant weight standard will involve additional testing costs for manufacturers because the nature of the test remains the same.
The principal benefit of the interim rule is the protection of life at sea by establishing capacity standards for inflatable liferafts and inflatable buoyant apparatuses reflecting a global increase in mariner weights. Additionally, the rule ensures compliance with internationally applicable standards for SOLAS adopted by IMO where noncompliance would exclude the use of inflatable liferafts manufactured under subpart 160.151 aboard SOLAS vessels.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard has considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
An SNPRM discussing the impact of this rule on small entities is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. In the SNPRM, the Coast Guard certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We received no comments on this certification and have made no changes that would alter our assessment of the impacts in the SNPRM.
We have identified three U.S.-owned entities involved in the manufacture of SOLAS liferafts manufactured under subpart 160.151. All are business entities, and all are small entities. For manufacturers seeking certification of equipment currently approved under subpart 160.151 whose rated capacity is six, re-testing at the higher occupant weight standard will be required to retain their SOLAS approval status since SOLAS inflatable liferafts must have a minimum rated capacity of at least six. For the three models of liferafts currently approved under subpart 160.151, the cost estimates for certification testing, obtained from industry sources, are approximately $1,800 per liferaft, for a total industry cost of $5,400 (3 liferaft models × $1,800 testing cost per model). As each of the three U.S. owned small businesses directly impacted by this rule will likely need to retest one model, the costs to these three small businesses is $1,800 per business. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Ms. Jacqueline Yurkovich, Commercial Regulations and Standards Directorate, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division (CG-5214), Coast Guard; email
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the field preemptive impact of the Federal regulatory regime for inspected vessels.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, as these categories are within a field foreclosed from regulation by the States (see
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Coast Guard has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule uses the following voluntary consensus standards:
• Resolution MSC.293(87), Adoption of Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code;
• Resolution MSC.295(87), Adoption of Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)).
The sections that reference these standards and the locations where these standards are available are listed in 46 CFR 160.151-5.
Section 608 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) adds new section 2118 to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Chapter 21 (General). New section 2118(a) sets forth requirements for standards established for approved equipment required on vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. Subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), Part B (Inspection and Regulation of Vessels). Those standards must be “(1) based on performance using the best available technology that is economically achievable; and (2) operationally practical.”
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is
Marine safety, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 160 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
(d) * * *
(5) Annex 7 to MSC 87/26, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Eighty-Seventh Session, “Resolution MSC.293(87), Adoption of Amendments to the International Life-Saving Appliance (LSA) Code,” (adopted May 21, 2010), IBR approved for §§ 160.151-7, 160.151-15, 160.151-17, 160.151-21, 160.151-29, and 160.151-33 (“Resolution MSC.293(87)”).
(6) Annex 9 to MSC 87/26, Report of the Maritime Safety Committee on its Eighty-Seventh Session, “Resolution MSC.295(87), Adoption of Amendments to the Revised Recommendation on Testing of Life-Saving Appliances (Resolution MSC.81(70)),” (adopted May 21, 2010), IBR approved for §§ 160.151-21, 160.151-27, 160.151-29, 160.151-31, and 160.151-57 (“Resolution MSC.295(87)”).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Clarification.
In this document, PHMSA is responding to comments received from its initial Notice No. 11-6 clarifying PHMSA's policy regarding the fireworks approvals program. Furthermore, in this document PHMSA is restating its policy clarification that it will accept only those classification approval applications for Division 1.1 fireworks that have been examined and assigned a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group by a DOT-approved explosives test laboratory, or those that have been issued an approval for the explosive by the competent authority of a foreign government acknowledged by PHMSA's Associate Administrator. This policy clarification is intended to enhance safety by ensuring that fireworks transported in commerce meet the established criteria for their assigned classification, thereby minimizing the potential shipment of incorrectly classified or forbidden fireworks.
The policy clarification discussed in this document is effective February 21, 2012.
Mr. Ryan Paquet, Director, Approvals and Permits Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366-4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) require that Division 1.1 fireworks must be examined by a DOT-approved explosives test laboratory and assigned a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group in accordance with § 173.56(b). The tests provided for the classification of Division 1.1 fireworks specified in §§ 173.57 and 173.58 describe the procedures used to determine the acceptance criteria and assignment of class and division for all new explosives. Further, the HMR also permit Division 1.1 firework devices that have been approved by the competent authority of a foreign government that PHMSA's Associate Administrator has acknowledged in writing as acceptable in accordance with § 173.56(g).
On September 27, 2011, PHMSA published the initial Notice No. 11-6 (76 FR 59769) clarifying its policy, consistent with the HMR, that all Division 1.1 fireworks must undergo examination by a DOT-approved explosives examination laboratory or be issued an approval for the explosive by the competent authority of a foreign government acknowledged by PHMSA's Associate Administrator. In today's document, PHMSA is responding to comments received as a result of this notice and is restating its policy clarification on the fireworks approval program.
The HMR require that Division 1.1 fireworks must be examined by a DOT-approved explosives test laboratory and assigned a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group in accordance with § 173.56(b). The HMR also permit Division 1.1 firework devices that have been approved by the competent authority of a foreign government that PHMSA's Associate Administrator has acknowledged in writing as acceptable in accordance with § 173.56(g).
According to § 173.56(j), manufacturers of Division 1.3 and 1.4 fireworks, or their designated U.S. agents, may apply for an explosives (EX) classification approval without prior examination by a DOT-approved explosives test laboratory if the firework device is manufactured in accordance with APA Standard 87-1 (IBR, see § 171.7), and the device passes the thermal stability test. Additionally, the applicant must certify that the firework device conforms to the APA Standard 87-1 and that the descriptions and technical information contained in the application are complete and accurate. PHMSA has in the past, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with § 173.56(i), approved some Division 1.1G fireworks without requiring testing by a DOT-approved explosives examination laboratory. PHMSA evaluates each EX approval application independently and has also required Division 1.1G fireworks to undergo examination testing by a DOT-approved explosive examination lab prior to issuing the EX approval.
While APA Standard 87-1 contains two instances where Division 1.1 fireworks may be approved under the standard, it does not call for the level of testing required in the HMR, nor does it provide testing and criteria to determine when a firework ceases to be a Division 1.1 and becomes forbidden for transport.
In this document, PHMSA is clarifying its policy that all Division 1.1 fireworks must undergo examination by a DOT-approved explosives examination laboratory or be approved by a competent authority. Division 1.1 fireworks will not require UN Test Method 6, as testing will be limited to UN Test Method 4a(i) and 4b(ii), as is specified in § 173.57(b). The examination laboratory may request additional information to make its classification recommendation. Additionally, PHMSA allows the laboratory to make a classification recommendation for Division 1.1 fireworks based on analogy.
PHMSA believes that by issuing Division 1.1 fireworks approvals only after a DOT-approved explosive laboratory has examined and recommended a classification, or an approval has been issued by a competent authority of a foreign government acknowledged by PHMSA's Associate Administrator, it is ensuring that fireworks transported in commerce meet the established criteria for their assigned classification, thereby minimizing the potential shipment of incorrectly classified or forbidden fireworks.
PHMSA received three comments in response to the initial Notice No. 11-6. The comments covered various topics including, but not limited to, transportation safety, general comments, and economic impacts. One commenter supported the clarification to the fireworks policy in initial Notice 11-6, while two commenters had reservations about it. A summary of the comments received is discussed below. The comments, as submitted to the docket for the initial Notice No. 11-6 (Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0157), may be accessed via
(1) Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.; PHMSA-2011-0157-0002.
(2) American Pyrotechnics Association (APA); PHMSA-2011-0157-0003.
(3) Kellner's Fireworks Inc.; PHMSA-201-0157-0004.
One commenter requests PHMSA consider waste management of used or defective fireworks when proposing any amendments to regulations related to the transport of fireworks. In this document, PHMSA does not propose any regulatory amendments; rather, we are clarifying existing policy. While PHMSA agrees environmental impacts should be considered when proposing amendments to regulations, no regulatory changes were proposed in the initial Notice; therefore, waste management of fireworks is beyond the scope of this document.
Another commenter acknowledges the current prohibition in the HMR to classify Division 1.1 fireworks under § 173.56(j), but requests that PHMSA remove the terminology “Division 1.3 and Division 1.4” in § 173.56(j) to allow PHMSA to grant approvals for all fireworks manufactured in accordance with APA Standard 87-1, regardless of their classification. This document is a clarification of current requirements and does not propose any regulatory amendments, rather, PHMSA is clarifying existing policy; therefore this request will be handled as a petition for rulemaking and responded to accordingly.
With regard to transportation safety, PHMSA received one comment in support of its effort to clarify the classification of Division 1.1 fireworks. Specifically, this commenter noted that
Another commenter opposes PHMSA's clarification and indicates that Division 1.1 fireworks approved under APA Standard 87-1 have not resulted in any incidents that would cause it to reconsider its practice. Although to date there have been no known incidents involving the transportation of Division 1.1 fireworks, there are known occurrences of fireworks being transported that contain chemical compositions rendering them forbidden from transportation. The APA Standard 87-1 does not provide the testing and criteria to determine when a device ceases to be a Division 1.1 firework device and becomes forbidden from transportation. Testing Division 1.1 fireworks devices as prescribed in the HMR, enables a determination when a firework device ceases to be a Division 1.1 device and becomes forbidden. Furthermore, this clarification will provide oversight to ensure that Division 1.1 fireworks meet the established criteria for their assigned classification, thereby minimizing the potential shipment of incorrectly classified or forbidden fireworks.
One commenter opposes the policy clarification because they indicate that fireworks currently classified as Division 1.1G devices have not changed in many years, even though the regulations governing their transportation have changed. The commenter states that a fireworks device that was previously considered to be 1.3G under APA Standard 87-1 is now considered a 1.1G, but the device is still manufactured the same way as it was when the device was classed as a 1.3G.
In December 1991, PHMSA (Research and Special Programs Administration) revised the HMR to align its classification system for fireworks with the U.N. Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Under the previous system, fireworks were classified as Class A, B, or C—Class A fireworks were considered to be the most hazardous and Class C fireworks were considered to be least hazardous. For the most part, Class A fireworks were reclassed as Division 1.1, Class B fireworks were reclassed as Division 1.3, and Class C fireworks were reclassed as Division 1.4. This resulted in some fireworks with shell diameters as great as 16 inches being classed as Division 1.3 fireworks. In the 2001-2002 edition of the APA Standard 87-1, fireworks with diameters greater than 10 inches were all classified as Division 1.1 fireworks. Prior to that edition of the APA Standard 87-1, aerial shell firework devices not classed as a 1.4G were classed as a 1.3G regardless of size or quantity of flash composition. This change was made in the interest of safety.
While PHMSA has approved Division 1.1G fireworks manufactured in accordance with the APA Standard 87-1, it evaluates each EX approval independently and has also required Division 1.1G fireworks to be examined.
Further, the commenter states that the testing for these items can cost upwards of $8,000 and that the cost will put fireworks companies intending to sell Division 1.1G fireworks devices at a major loss before the product is available for sale. To the contrary, third-party labs have indicated that the cost of performing these tests is considerably less—depending on a number of variables, PHMSA estimates that required tests would cost less than $5,400.
Also, as indicated in the initial document, if a fireworks device is classed and approved as a Division 1.1 firework, the UN Test Method 6 is not required; rather, testing will be limited to UN Test Method 4a(i) and 4b(ii), as is specified in § 173.57(b). Further, PHMSA allows the laboratory to make a classification recommendation for Division 1.1 fireworks based on analogy.
This document is intended to clarify current regulations: that only Division 1.3 and 1.4 fireworks devices may be approved in accordance with the APA Standard 87-1.
Based on the comments received and PHMSA's responses to those comments, henceforth, PHMSA will not accept Division 1.1 fireworks approval applications submitted under the APA Standard 87-1. Division 1.1 fireworks must be examined and assigned a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group by a DOT-approved explosives test laboratory, or issued an approval for the explosive by the competent authority of a foreign government acknowledged by PHMSA's Associate Administrator. On a case-by-case basis under 173.56(i), PHMSA will evaluate them for approval without testing.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honeywell International Inc. models TFE731-4, -4R, -5, -5R, -5AR, and -5BR series turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a rim/web separation of a first stage low-pressure turbine (LPT1) rotor assembly. This proposed AD would require replacing affected LPT1 rotor assemblies with LPT1 rotor assemblies eligible for installation. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained disk separation, leading to fuel tank penetration, fire, personal injury, and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Honeywell Engines and Systems Technical Publications and Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170, phone: 602-365-2493 (General Aviation), 602-365-5535 (Commercial Aviation), fax: 602-365-5577 (General Aviation and Commercial Aviation). You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210: email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received a report of a rim/web separation on an LPT1 rotor disk, part number (P/N) 3075446-2, in a TFE731-5BR engine. The crack propagated in sustained peak strain low-cycle-fatigue, and accumulated 762 cycles-in-service (CIS) before failure. The current published life limit for this part is 10,000 CIS. The most probable cause for this separation was due to LPT1 blade walking. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncontained disk separation, fuel tank penetration, fire, personal injury, and damage to the airplane.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require replacing affected LPT1 rotor assemblies with improved design LPT1 rotor assemblies that are eligible for installation.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,550 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions at next access and 165 work-hours per unscheduled engine disassembly, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Replacement parts would cost about $175,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $35,195,488 per year.
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:
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by April 23, 2012.
None.
(1) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. model TFE731-5 series engines, with a first stage low-pressure turbine (LPT1) rotor assembly, part number (P/N) 3075184-2, 3075184-3, or 3075184-4, installed.
(2) This AD also applies to Honeywell International Inc. models TFE731-5AR and -5BR series engines, with a first stage LPT1 rotor assembly, P/N 3075447-1, 3075447-2, 3075447-4, 3075713-1, 3075713-2, 3075713-3, or 3074748-5, installed.
(3) This AD also applies to Honeywell International Inc. models TFE731-4, -4R, -5AR, -5BR, and -5R series turbofan engines, with an LPT1 rotor assembly, P/N 3074748-4, 3074748-5, 3075447-1, 3075447-2, 3075447-4, 3075713-1, 3075713-2, or 3075713-3, installed.
This AD was prompted by a report of a rim/web separation of an LPT1 rotor assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained disk separation, leading to fuel tank penetration, fire, personal injury, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Remove the LPT1 rotor assembly at the next access to the LPT1 rotor assembly or at the next major periodic inspection, not to exceed 2,600 hours-in-service since last major periodic inspection, or 8 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) Install an LPT1 rotor assembly that is eligible for installation.
(1) Remove the LPT1 rotor assembly at the next core zone inspection, not to exceed 5,100 hours-in-service since last core zone inspection, or at the next time the LPT1 rotor disc is removed for cause, or 8 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) Install an LPT1 rotor assembly that is eligible for installation.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, “next access” is when the low-pressure tie rod is unstretched.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, an LPT1 rotor assembly “eligible for installation” is an LPT1 rotor assembly not having a P/N listed in this AD.
After the effective date of this AD, if the rotor assembly must be replaced as specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (g)(1) of this AD, do not install any LPT1 rotor assembly listed by P/N in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, into any engine.
The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to request an AMOC.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210: email:
(2) Honeywell International Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) No. TFE731-72-3768, SB No. TFE731-72-3769, and SB No. TFE731-72-3770, pertain to the subject of this AD. Contact Honeywell Engines and Systems Technical Publications and Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170, phone: 602-365-2493 (General Aviation), 602-365-5535 (Commercial Aviation), fax: 602-365-5577 (General Aviation and Commercial Aviation), for a copy of this service information.
(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); rescission.
We propose to rescind an airworthiness directive (AD) for RRD BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines. The existing AD resulted from the need to reduce the published life limits of high-pressure (HP) turbine stage 1 discs, part numbers (P/Ns) BRH20130 and BRH20131, and HP turbine stage 2 discs, P/Ns BRH19423 and BRH19427.
Since we issued the existing AD, RRD has revised the approved published life limits of these parts to the same or higher limits as originally certified.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7758; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD rescission. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On March 17, 2009, we issued AD 2009-07-01 (74 FR 12086, March 23, 2009). That AD requires reducing the published life limits of BR700-715 turbofan engine HP turbine stage 1 discs, P/Ns BRH20130 and BRH20131, and HP turbine stage 2 discs, P/Ns BRH19423 and BRH19427.
Since we issued AD 2009-07-01 (74 FR 12086, March 23, 2009), RRD has revised the approved published life limits of these HP turbine stage 1 discs to the same or higher limits as originally certified. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive Cancellation Notice 2007-0152-CN, dated December 22, 2011. EASA stated in that Cancellation Notice that they have approved published life limits for the affected parts that are increased to the same or higher value as originally certified. We have evaluated the information provided by RRD and EASA and have determined that an unsafe condition no longer exists in these HP turbine stage 1 and stage 2 discs.
We are proposing this AD rescission of AD 2009-07-01 (74 FR 12086, March 23, 2009) because we evaluated all information and determined that allowing the increase in the published part life limits is acceptable. This proposed AD would rescind AD 2009-07-01.
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 a practice, method, or procedure necessary for safety in air commerce.
We determined that this proposed AD rescission would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD rescission would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed rescission of a regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD rescission and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by rescinding airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-07-01, Amendment 39-15860 (74 FR 12086, March 23, 2009):
We must receive comments by April 23, 2012.
This AD rescinds AD 2009-07-01 (74 FR 12086, March 23, 2009).
This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the instructions for continued airworthiness for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance program for certain other airplanes, to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. Since we issued that AD, Fokker Services B.V. has revised a Fokker 70/100 maintenance review board (MRB) document with revised limitations, tasks, thresholds, and intervals. This proposed AD would revise the maintenance program to incorporate the limitations, tasks, thresholds, and intervals specified in that Fokker MRB document. We are proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31 (0)252-627-211; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On July 9, 2004, we issued AD 2004-15-08, Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004). This AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 2004-15-08, Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004): The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0157, dated August 25, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Fokker Services have published issue 8 of report SE-623 dated 17 March 2011, which is part of the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1, of the Fokker 70/100 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) document. The complete Airworthiness Limitations Section currently consists of:
The instructions contained in those reports have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0046, which is superseded, and requires the implementation of the inspections and limitations as specified in the Airworthiness Limitation Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, referred to in Section 06, Appendix 1 of the Fokker 70/100 MRB document, reports SE-473, SE-623 and SE-672 at the above-mentioned issues.
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank
Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88 (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following documents:
• Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Issue 8, dated September 1, 2009.
• Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Limits,” Issue 8, dated December 20, 2010.
• Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL),” Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 4 products of U.S. registry.
The actions that are required by AD 2004-15-08, Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004) and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. The actions that are required by AD 2008-06-20, Amendment 39-15432 (73 FR 14661, March 19, 2008) and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $170 per product.
We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,020, or $255 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004) and adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by April 6, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2004-15-08, Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004). This AD also affects AD 2008-06-20, Amendment 39-15432 (73 FR 14661, March 19, 2008).
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (m) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a revised Fokker 70/100 maintenance review board (MRB) document with revised limitations, tasks, thresholds, and intervals. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
Within 6 months after August 31, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-15-08, Amendment 39-13742 (69 FR 44586, July 27, 2004)), revise the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitations Items and Safe Life Items,” Issue 2, dated September 1, 2001; and Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Issue 5, dated July 16, 2001; into Section 6 of the Fokker 70/100 MRB document. (These reports are already incorporated into Fokker 70/100 MRB document, Revision 10, dated October 1, 2001.) Once the actions required by this paragraph have been accomplished, the original issue of Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitations Items and Safe Life Items,” dated June 1, 2000, may be removed from the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Doing the actions in paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
After the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in paragraph (g) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.
Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before the revision of the ALS for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance program for certain other airplanes, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the ALS for certain airplanes, and the FAA-approved maintenance program for certain other airplanes has been revised, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance program to incorporate the airworthiness limitations specified in the Fokker maintenance review board (MRB) documents listed in paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD. For all tasks and retirement lifes identified in the Fokker MRB documents listed in paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the interval specified in the Fokker MRB documents listed in paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD.
(1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) At the time specified in the documents listed in paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD.
(3) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Issue 8, dated September 1, 2009.
(4) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Limits,” Issue 8, dated December 20, 2010.
(5) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL),” Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i) of this AD, terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5) of AD 2008-06-20, Amendment 39-15432 (73 FR 14661, March 19, 2008).
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0157, dated August 25, 2011, and the service information specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this AD, for related information.
(1) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-473, “Fokker 70/100 Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Issue 8, dated September 1, 2009.
(2) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-623, “Fokker 70/100 Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life Limits,” Issue 8, dated December 20, 2010.
(3) Fokker Services B.V. Report SE-672, “Fokker 70/100 Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL),” Issue 2, dated December 1, 2006.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2C1, 2C2, and 2S2 turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a helicopter experiencing a digital engine control unit (DECU) malfunction during flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of automatic control on one or both engines installed on the same helicopter, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or accident.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0249, dated December 22, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An incident has been reported of a helicopter which experienced a Digital Engine Control Unit (DECU) malfunction in flight from one of its Arriel 2C1 engines. The indicating system of the helicopter displayed a “FADEC FAIL” message, with a concurrent loss of automatic control of the engine. The mission was aborted and the helicopter returned to its base without any further incident.
The subsequent technical investigations carried out by Turbomeca revealed that a Digital Engine Control Unit (DECU) assembly non-conformity was at the origin of this event. Further investigations performed with the supplier of the DECU led to the conclusion that only a limited number of DECU are potentially affected by the non-conformity.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Turbomeca S.A. has issued Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 73 2845, Version A, dated December 19, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with EASA, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about two engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about one work-hour per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $12,551 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $25,272. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by April 23, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2C1, 2C2, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with any of the digital engine control units (DECUs) listed in Table 1 of this AD installed.
This AD was prompted by a report of a helicopter experiencing a DECU malfunction during flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of automatic control on one or both engines installed on the same helicopter, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight engine shutdown, forced autorotation landing, or accident.
Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) For any helicopter fitted with two DECUs listed in Table 1 of this AD:
(i) Within 50 engine hours after the effective date of this AD, replace one of the two DECUs with a DECU that is not listed in Table 1 of this AD.
(ii) Within 1,000 engine hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the other DECU with a DECU that is not listed in Table 1 of this AD.
(2) For any helicopter fitted with one DECU listed in Table 1 of this AD, within 1,000 engine hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the DECU with a DECU that is not listed in Table 1 of this AD.
From the effective date of this AD, do not install a DECU listed in Table 1 of this AD onto any engine, and do not install any engine having a DECU listed in Table 1 of this AD, onto a helicopter.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2011-0249, dated December 22, 2011, and Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 73 2845, Version A, dated December 19, 2011, for related information.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify three VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-10, V-12, and V-508 in the vicinity of Olathe, KS. The FAA is proposing this action to adjust the airway route structure due to the planned decommissioning of the Johnson County VOR/DME navigation aid located on Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS.
Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2012.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0055 and Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-12.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center requested the decommissioning of the Johnson County (OJC) VOR/DME navigation aid located on the Johnson County Executive Airport, Olathe, KS, due to poor performance of the navigation aid. The OJC VOR/DME performs poorly due to suburban encroachment into the facility's critical areas. Approach procedures using the facility as the primary navigational aid have been cancelled while other procedures serving the airport are being amended to discontinue use of the facility. Additionally, building infrastructure housing the VOR/DME equipment is deteriorating rapidly. The building is prone to water leakage jeopardizing the equipment and creating hazardous working conditions for maintenance personnel. As a result, the OJC VOR/DME is no longer cost effective to maintain and operate and is planned to be decommissioned without replacement.
The FAA conducted an aeronautical study of the proposal to decommission the Johnson County VOR/DME in 2009 and issued a determination of non-objection with the special provision that all instrument procedures that utilize the OJC VOR/DME be modified with minimal impact to the aviation community. This proposed action would modify the affected airways to provide continued navigation capability in the Olathe, KS, area.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify V-10, V-12, and V-508 in the vicinity of Olathe, KS. These changes are required due to the planned decommissioning of the OJC VOR/DME in July 2012.
The proposed changes to V-10 and V-12 are administrative in nature and intended to keep the route segments in the vicinity of Olathe, KS, between Emporia, KS, and Napoleon, MO, unchanged. To retain the airway structure of these airways, the FAA would establish the WETZL fix at the same location depicting the OJC VOR/DME navigation aid. The modification to V-10 and V-12 would replace the OJC VOR/DME in the current airway descriptions with the WETZL fix (described as the intersection of the navigation aid radials that define WETZL). Specifically, the proposed modification to the V-10 and V-12 descriptions would replace the “Johnson County, KS” reference with “INT Emporia 063°(T)/055°(M) and Napoleon, MO, 242°(T)/235°(M) radials”. The magnetic radial information would be removed in the final rule.
As currently established, V-508 ends at the OJC VOR/DME. The proposed change to V-508 would eliminate the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal Airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it proposes to modify VOR Federal Airways in the vicinity of Olathe, KS.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:
From Pueblo, CO; 18 miles, 48 miles, 60 MSL, Lamar, CO; Garden City, KS; Dodge City, KS; Hutchinson, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063°(T)/055°(M) and Napoleon, MO, 242°(T)/235°(M) radials; Napoleon; Kirksville, MO; Burlington, IA; Bradford, IL; to INT Bradford 058° and Joliet, IL, 287° radials. From INT Chicago Heights, IL, 358° and Gipper, MI, 271° radials; Gipper; Litchfield, MI; INT Litchfield 101° and Carleton, MI, 262° radials; Carleton; INT Jefferson, OH, 279° and Youngstown, OH, 320° radials; Youngstown; INT Youngstown 116° and Revloc, PA, 300° radials; Revloc; INT Revloc 107° and Lancaster, PA, 280° radials; to Lancaster. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Gaviota, CA; San Marcus, CA; Palmdale, CA; 38 miles, 6 miles wide, Hector, CA; 12 miles, 38 miles, 85 MSL, 14 miles, 75 MSL, Needles, CA; 45 miles, 34 miles, 95 MSL, Drake, AZ; Winslow, AZ; 30 miles, 85 MSL, Zuni, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Otto, NM; Anton Chico, NM; Tucumcari, NM; Amarillo, TX; Mitbee, OK; Anthony, KS; Wichita, KS; Emporia, KS; INT Emporia 063°(T)/055°(M) and Napoleon, MO, 242°(T)/235°(M) radials; Napoleon; INT Napoleon 095° and Columbia, MO, 292° radials; Columbia; Foristell, MO; Troy, IL; Bible Grove, IL; Shelbyville, IN; Richmond, IN; Dayton, OH; Appleton, OH; Newcomerstown, OH; Allegheny, PA; Johnstown, PA; Harrisburg, PA; INT Harrisburg 092° and Pottstown, PA, 278° radials; to Pottstown.
From Hill City, KS; Hays, KS; Salina, KS, INT Salina 082° and Manhattan, KS, 207° radials; Manhattan; INT Manhattan 078° and Topeka, KS, 293° radials; Topeka; to INT Topeka 112°(T)/107°(M) and Kansas City, MO, 228°(T)/223°(M) radials.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Proposed rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-130302-10), which was published in the
Joseph S. Henderson (202) 622-3880 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of these corrections are under section 6038 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on December 19, 2011, (76 FR 78594), the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-130302-10), contains errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * * A trust described in section 7701(a)(30)(E) to the extent such trust or any portion thereof is treated as owned by one or more specified persons under sections 671 through 678 and the regulations issued under those sections.
Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Elsewhere in the
Comments must be received by March 22, 2012.
Address all comments to the Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or facsimile (202) 307-0693. To ensure proper handling, please reference the CPCLO Order number in your correspondence. You may review an electronic version of the proposed rule at
Please note that the Department is requesting that electronic comments be submitted before midnight Eastern standard time on the day the comment period closes because
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the term “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personally identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the term “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.
Personally identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the Department's public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the
Holley B. O'Brien, Director, Debt Collection Management Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, at (202) 514-5343.
In the Notice section of today's
In this rulemaking, the DOJ proposes to exempt certain records in this Privacy Act system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because the system contains material compiled for law enforcement purposes.
This proposed rule relates to individuals, as opposed to small business entities. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires that the DOJ consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. There are no current or new information collection requirements associated with this proposed rule. The records that are contributed to the Debt Collection Enforcement system would be created in any event by law enforcement entities and their sharing of this information electronically will not increase the paperwork burden on the public.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. UMRA requires a written
Administrative practices and procedures, Courts, Freedom of Information Act, Government in the Sunshine Act, and the Privacy Act.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, it is proposed to amend 28 CFR part 16 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 552b(g), 553; 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701.
2. Section 16.134 is added to read as follows:
(a) The following system of records is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(G), (H) and (I), (5) and (8); (f) and (g) of the Privacy Act. In addition, the system is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1); (4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f). These exemptions apply only to the extent that information in this system is subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) or (k)(2). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system, or the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemption may be waived by the DOJ in its sole discretion.
(b) Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3), the requirement that an accounting be made available to the named subject of a record, because certain records in this system are exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d). Also, because making available to a record subject the accounting of disclosures from records concerning him/her would specifically reveal any investigative interest in the individual. Revealing this information may thus compromise ongoing law enforcement efforts. Revealing this information may also permit the record subject to take measures to impede the investigation, such as destroying evidence, intimidating potential witnesses or fleeing the area to avoid the investigation.
(2) From subsection (c)(4) notification requirements because certain records in this system are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) as well as the access to accounting of disclosures provision of subsection (c)(3).
(3) From subsections (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4) because access to the records contained in this system might compromise ongoing investigations, reveal confidential informants, or constitute unwarranted invasions of the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain investigation. Amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing debt collection investigations or other law enforcement proceedings and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated.
(4) From subsection (e)(1) because it is not always possible to know in advance what information is relevant and necessary for law enforcement purposes.
(5) From subsection (e)(2) to avoid impeding law enforcement efforts associated with debt collection by putting the subject of an investigation on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that investigation.
(6) From subsection (e)(3) to avoid impeding law enforcement efforts in conjunction with debt collection by putting the subject of an investigation on notice of that fact, thereby permitting the subject to engage in conduct intended to frustrate or impede that investigation.
(7) From subsection (e)(4)(G), (H) and (I) because portions of this system are exempt from the access provisions of subsection (d) pursuant to subsections (j) and (k) of the Privacy Act.
(8) From subsection (e)(5) because many of the records in this system are records contributed by other agencies and the restrictions imposed by (e)(5) would limit the utility of the system.
(9) From subsection (e)(8), because to require individual notice of disclosure of information due to compulsory legal process would pose an impossible administrative burden on the DOJ and may alert the subjects of law enforcement investigations, who might be otherwise unaware, to the fact of those investigations.
(10) From subsections (f) and (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone in the vicinity of the South shores of Lake Pontchartrain adjacent to the East bank of the Lakefront Airport runways in New Orleans, Louisiana. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with high-speed aerobatic displays by the participants of the 1812 Blue Angels Air Show, during the War of 1812 Commemoration.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 22, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2010-0012 using any one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marcie Kohn, Sector New Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via
To submit your comment online, go to
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before February 28, 2012 using one of the four methods specified under
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact LCDR Marcie Kohn at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
In conjunction with the War of 1812 Commemoration celebrations taking place in the city of New Orleans, the Coast Guard has received an application request for a marine permit in support of the Blue Angels Air Show, to take place over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain. The Blue Angels Air Show is scheduled to take scheduled to occur daily between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m, beginning April 19, 2012 through April 22, 2012. The request calls for a safety zone to be created over the Lake to accommodate the air show participants with an aerobatic display box. The Coast Guard has determined that the safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with the high speed aerobatic displays of the air show participants.
The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone extending approximately 3,000′ from the South shores of Lake Pontchartrain, adjacent to the East bank of the Lakefront Airport runways. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with high speed aerobatic displays from the participants of the Blue Angels Air Show. There will be a 12,000′ × 3,000′ aerobatic display area, which requires the surface of the water to be sterile of non-participants. The Blue Angels Air Show is scheduled to take scheduled to occur daily between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., beginning April 19, 2012 through April 22, 2012. The coordinates for the aerobatic display area are as follows:
SE corner: N 30°02′07.71″ & W 90°01′53.56″
SW corner: N 30°02′07.71″ & W 90°04′10.05″
NW corner: N 30°02′38.37″ & W 90°04′10.05″
NE corner: N 30°02′38.37″ & W 90°01′53.56″
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of
The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal because the proposed enforcement periods are short in duration. Additionally, closure of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal entrance to Lake Pontchartrain, in support of the Seabrook Surge Barrier construction project by the Army Corps of Engineers, restricts the majority of commercial traffic. As a result, the proposed safety zone will have minimal impact, if any, on the area which is used primarily by recreational boaters.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 7 hours daily during the Air Show display. The small entities that may be affected include small entities engaged in the business of recreational boating in the area or other marine traffic in the area. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation please contact Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marcie Kohn, Sector New Orleans, at 504-365-2281 or email
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Marcie Kohn. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T08-0032 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels requiring entry into or passage through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans, or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF 16, or by telephone at (504) 365-2543.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port New Orleans and designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
EPA is holding an initial meeting of the Arsenic Small Systems Working Group to provide input and recommendations on barriers to the use of point-of-use and point-of-entry treatment units, package plant, and modular units, as well as alternative affordability criteria that give extra weight to small, rural, and lower income communities. This meeting will be held via Webcast and the public may attend this meeting.
The Work Group meeting will be held on March 2, 2012 (1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Eastern Time (ET)). Persons wishing to participate must register in advance as described in the
The meeting will be held via the Internet using a Webcast and teleconference. Registrants will receive an Internet access link and dial in number upon registration for the Webcast. To participate in the Webcast, you must register in advance at the following Web address:
For questions about this specific meeting, contact Russ Perkinson, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone (202) 564-4901 or by email to
Congressional language contained in the Conference Report (H.R. 2055) accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 directs the Environmental Protection Agency to convene an Arsenic Small Systems Working Group composed of representatives from States, small publicly owned water systems, local public health officials, drinking water consumers and treatment manufacturers to provide input and recommendations on barriers to the use of point-of-use and point-of-entry treatment units, package plant, and modular units, as well as alternative affordability criteria that give extra weight to small, rural, and lower income communities. Based upon input from the work group, the EPA will submit to Congress a report on actions to make alternative compliance methods more accessible to water systems and a report on alternative affordability criteria.
To participate in the Webcast, you must register in advance at the following Web address:
To request special accommodations for individuals with disabilities, please contact Russ Perkinson at (202) 564-4910 or by email to
Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, HHS.
Notice of tribal consultation.
The title IV-B regulations regarding the title IV-B plan and fiscal requirements are outdated due to statutory changes over the last 15 years. The Children's Bureau (CB) is deciding whether to revise the regulations accordingly. Per the ACF Tribal Consultation Policy (76 FR 55678, published September 8, 2011), we request comments from Indian Tribes that operate a title IV-B, subpart 1 and/or title IV-B, subpart 2 program and any other interested party. We provide further information on these statutory changes below, under
Please submit written comments to the office listed in the
Interested persons may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jan Rothstein, Division of Policy, Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20024; phone: (202) 401-5073; email at:
Federal regulations at 45 CFR 1357, originally published in 1996, implement title IV-B of the Social Security Act (the Act). Legislation enacted over the last 15 years added new plan and fiscal requirements to title IV-B for States and Tribes to implement. While we have addressed these title IV-B requirements in Program Instructions and Information Memorandums, we are considering regulatory amendments to bring the regulations in line with the Act. Additionally, these regulations refer to numerous obsolete dates and timelines. Below, we provide a list of the major changes in the law since 1996 that relate to the title IV-B program requirements.
Several regulatory provisions have been superseded by statute including:
•
•
•
The Child and Family Services Plan requirements have been revised by statutory changes including:
• A requirement that title IV-B agencies coordinate and collaborate with the State Medicaid agency and, in consultation with pediatricians and others, develop a plan for the ongoing oversight and coordination of health care services for any child in a foster care placement in accordance with the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-351).
• A description of the standards for the content and frequency of caseworker visits for children in foster care as described in sections 422(b)(17) of the Act pursuant to Public Law 112-34; and
• A description of activities to reduce the length of time children under five years of age are without a permanent family and to address the developmental needs of such children who receive benefits or services under titles IV-B/IV-E in accordance with Public Law 112-34.
Amendments to the Act over the years removed several title IV-B requirements including:
•
•
Region II meeting/conference call March 15, 2012, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. EST.
Region VI meeting/conference call March 6, 2012, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. CT.
Region VII meeting/conference call February 24, 2012, 1-3 p.m. CT.
Region X meeting/conference call on March 19, 2012, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. PT.
42 U.S.C. 620
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to amend the regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act (Act) by establishing public notice and comment procedures for applications to conduct certain otherwise prohibited activities under the Act that are authorized under the Captive Bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations. This action would add procedural requirements to the processing of applications for registration under the CBW regulations. Notices of receipt of each application would be published in the
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before March 22, 2012.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
We will not accept emails or faxes. We will post all comments on
Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2104; fax 703-358-2281. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
In 1979, the Service published the Captive-Bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to reduce Federal permitting requirements and facilitate captive breeding of endangered and threatened species under certain prescribed conditions. Specifically, under these regulations, the Service promulgated a general permit to authorize persons to take; export or reimport; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce endangered or threatened wildlife bred in captivity in the United States. Qualifying persons and facilities seeking such authorization under the regulations are required to register with the Service. By establishing a more flexible management scheme to regulate routine activities related to captive propagation, these regulations have benefited wild populations by, for example, increasing sources of genetic stock that can be used to bolster or reestablish wild populations, decreasing the need to take stock from the wild, and providing for research opportunities.
The authorization granted under the CBW regulations is limited by several conditions. These conditions include:
(1) The wildlife is of a species having a natural geographic distribution not including any part of the United States or the wildlife is of a species that the Director has determined to be eligible in accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(g)(5);
(2) The purpose of authorized activities is to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species;
(3) Activities do not involve interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of commercial activity, with respect to nonliving wildlife;
(4) That each specimen of wildlife to be reimported is uniquely identified by
(5) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who engages in any of the authorized activities does so in accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(g) and with all other applicable regulations.
The regulations also specify application requirements for registration that are designed to provide the Service with information needed to determine whether the applicant has the means of enhancing the propagation or survival of the affected species. For example, the application must include a description of the applicant's experience in maintaining and propagating the types of wildlife sought to be covered under the registration and documentation depicting the facilities in which the subject wildlife will be maintained.
Under this proposed rule, the Service would amend the CBW regulations to provide the public with notice of receipt of applications for CBW registration and an opportunity to comment on an applicant's eligibility to register under the regulations. If we determine that the registration should be granted, we will notify the public by publishing our findings in the
By incorporating these procedural amendments to the CBW regulations, the Service intends to increase transparency and openness in the CBW registration process, consistent with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2009, which encourage government agencies to establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration by disclosing information to the public. In addition, with these amendments, we believe that increased public participation in the CBW registration process will lead to better decisions by assisting the Service in assessing whether the applicants are capable of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. By incorporating these procedures to increase transparency and openness in the registration process, interested persons' perceptions of the fairness of the registration process will improve, as well as their acceptance of our ultimate determination as to whether the registration should be granted.
One of the factors that led to the Service establishing the CBW program was the desire to avoid permitting delays that might hinder the propagation of endangered and threatened species for conservation purposes. The Service receives an annual average of 26 applications to establish new CBW registrations and 80 applications to renew already approved CBW registrations. Because the ESA prohibitions remain in place during the initial application process, new applicants are unable to carry out activities under a CBW registration until it is issued. While the publication of the receipt of an application under the CBW program would increase the processing time for the application by approximately 35 or 40 days, we do not believe that this increase in processing time would adversely affect the potential CBW registrant's conservation work. In addition, in the event of an emergency situation where the health or life of a protected species is threatened and no reasonable alternative is available to the applicant, the Service shall waive this 30-day public comment period.
Regulations are already in place (50 CFR 13.22(c)) that allow for the continuation of authorized activities if a CBW registrant submits a renewal application at least 30 days before the expiration of the current CBW authorization and the registration is in good standing (i.e., annual reports have been submitted and the registration is not suspended). Provided that the current CBW holders submit their renewal request at least 30 days before the expiration date, the comment period would have no impact on their ability to carry out previously approved activities. The current registration would continue to be valid until the renewal process, including the 30-day comment period, ends and we make a final determination.
The Service will also extend the registration period associated with approved CBW registrations up to 5 years, provided that the registrant remains in good standing. This increase in the registration period from 3 years to 5 years will both reduce the application renewal burden on CBW registrants and reduce the workload on the Service to process renewal requests. Furthermore, the annual reporting requirement will remain in place, and because the Service uses these reports to monitor CBW registrants, the Service does not believe that extending the registration period would adversely affect the oversight of the CBW program.
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is below an established size standard. We expect that the majority of the entities involved in activities authorized under the CBW program would be considered small as defined by the SBA.
This rule would require the Service to publish notices in the
We, therefore, certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule would codify a public notice-and-comment process for the receipt of CBW applications and require the publication of certain findings for registrations granted under the CBW regulations. The Service would publish no more than two notices in the
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule would not result in an increase in the number of applications for registration to conduct otherwise-prohibited activities with endangered and threatened species.
c. Would not have any adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
a. This rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
b. This rule would not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million or greater in any year and is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.21 by revising paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:
(g) * * *
(3) Upon receipt of a complete application for registration, or the renewal or amendment of an existing registration, under this section, the Service will publish notice of the application in the
(i) At the completion of this comment period, the Director will decide whether to approve the registration. In making this decision, the Director will consider, in addition to the general criteria in § 13.21(b) of this subchapter, whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected wildlife. Public education activities may not be the sole basis to justify issuance of a registration or to otherwise establish eligibility for the exception granted in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(ii) If the Director approves the registration, the Service will publish notice of the decision in the
(iii) Each person so registered must maintain accurate written records of activities conducted under the registration, and allow reasonable access to Service agents for inspection purposes as set forth in §§ 13.46 and 13.47 of this chapter. Each person so registered must also submit to the Director an individual written annual report of activities, including all births, deaths, and transfers of any type.
Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to North Carolina State University of Raleigh, North Carolina, an exclusive license to the soybean variety named “N7003CN”.
Comments must be received on or before March 22, 2012.
Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.
June Blalock of the Office of Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 301-504-5989.
The Federal Government's rights in this plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
New schedule for implementation of routine testing and verification activities.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing a new date for when it will implement routine verification sampling and testing for raw beef manufacturing trimmings for six non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing
Beginning June 4, 2012, FSIS will implement routine verification activities, including testing, for the six additional STEC discussed in this document (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145), of raw beef manufacturing trimmings (domestic or imported) derived from cattle slaughtered on or after June 4, 2012. To facilitate compliance with the policy, and to allow industry time to implement any necessary changes in their food safety systems, FSIS will generally not regard raw, non-intact beef products or the components of these products found to have these pathogens as adulterated until June 4, 2012.
Daniel Engeljohn, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 205-0495.
On September 20, 2011, FSIS published a
FSIS announced that it intended to implement a verification sampling and testing program for the six non-O157 STEC, as it already does for
In addition, FSIS asked for comments on: Agency plans for a baseline survey of relevant
In response to comments, FSIS extended the public comment period from November 21, 2011, to December 21, 2011, and held a public meeting by teleconference on December 1, 2011 to solicit comments (76 FR 72331; Nov. 23, 2011). FSIS intends to publish a
Many of the comments requested a delay of the implementation date for testing for the relevant STECs for various reasons, including the need for test kits to detect these organisms to become more widely available.
While FSIS is confident that reliable test kits will be available for commercial use before March 5, allowing additional time for beef establishments to begin sampling and testing with these new
With the implementation of verification testing for beef manufacturing trimmings on June 4, FSIS will also consider raw, non-intact beef products or raw, intact products intended for use in non-intact beef products that are contaminated with STEC O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145, to be adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1) and (m)(3). FSIS will generally not regard raw, non-intact beef products found to have these pathogens as adulterated until it implements this verification testing program. However, if product is associated with an STEC outbreak before that time, the product will be deemed adulterated and subject to recall, consistent with current FSIS practice.
Finally, the Agency notes that in February 2012, it contacted foreign governments already approved for the export of raw beef to the United States and informed them that FSIS would make a limited amount of reagents used in the FSIS laboratory method for non-O157 STECs available to a foreign government if that government wanted to conduct a comparative analysis of its method and methods used with test kits assessed by FSIS. Although these comparative analyses are not a necessary precondition for FSIS to begin verification testing of raw beef manufacturing trimmings on June 4, 2012, FSIS believes that the results of such comparative analyses could be useful.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at:
FSIS also will make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meetings.
The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB) has announced its meeting dates for 2012. These meetings are open to the public, and public comment is accepted at any time in writing, at the pleasure of the Chair, and during the last 15 minutes of each meeting, limited to three (3) minutes per person for oral comments.
Meeting dates are the third Wednesday of each month unless otherwise indicated:
Meetings will begin at 1 p.m. and end no later than 5 p.m. at the Forest Service Center, 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, SD 57702.
Committee Management Officer, Black Hills National Forest, 1019 N. 5th Street, Custer, SD 57730, (605) 673-9200.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for stakeholder input.
Section 7403 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) (FCEA) amended section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(d)) to provide the opportunity for 1862 and 1890 Land-Grant Institutions, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University to compete for section 3(d) funds. Section 7417 of FCEA also provided the University of the District of Columbia the opportunity to compete for section 3(d) funds. The Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) Sustainable Community Projects is among the Extension programs funded under this authority. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) plans to consider stakeholder input received from written comments in developing future competitive RFAs for this program.
Webinars will be held on Thursday, February 22, 2012 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time and Friday, March 9, 2012 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. All comments not otherwise presented or submitted for the record at the meeting must be submitted by close of business Friday, March 30, 2012 to assure consideration in the next RFA.
All submissions received must include the agency name and the identifier NIFA-2012-0005. All comments received will be posted to
Bonita Williams (202)720-3566, (FAX) 202.720.9366,
Reservations for oral comments will be confirmed on a first-come, first-serve basis during the listening session. All comments and the official transcript of the meeting, when they become available, may be reviewed on the NIFA Web page for six months.
The mission of the CYFAR Program is to marshal resources of Land-Grant and Cooperative Extension Systems, so that, in collaboration with other organizations, they can develop and deliver educational programs that equip youth who are at risk for not meeting basic human needs with the skills they need to lead positive, productive, and contributing lives. Through an annual congressional appropriation for the CYFAR Program, NIFA allocates funding to land-grant university Extension services for community-based programs for at-risk children and their families. NIFA is seeking stakeholder input regarding CYFAR's structure of the professional development and technical support program for fiscal year 2013. The focus of the webinar will be to address the following questions:
1. What should change about CYFAR, if anything?
2. What specific audiences should CYFAR target within at-risk populations?
3. Are there audiences for which CYFAR could have greater impact?
4. CYFERnet.org, are you using this, if so, please explain how?
5. CYFERnetSEARCH.org, are you using this, if so, please explain how?
6. How should the role of the CYFAR liaison be changed, if at all?
7. Have the capacity building workshops been effective, please explain?
8. Should we have a CYFAR liaison who is responsible specifically for capacity building, please explain?
9. CYFAR Conference, how effective has the CYFAR Conference been for your professional development in working with at-risk populations?
10. What percentage of the CYFAR funds should go to building the capacity of the system to serve at-risk audiences vs. building the capacity of the grantees?
Stakeholders' comments provided on the questions above will provide guidance to NIFA in restructuring the program and assisting NIFA leadership in more fully addressing stakeholder needs.
NIFA plans to consider stakeholder input received from this public meeting as well as other written comments in developing the FY 2013 program guidelines. NIFA anticipates
releasing the FY 2013 Request for Applications (RFA) by winter 2012.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
NOAA has established a program to reduce excess fishing capacity by paying fishermen to (1) surrender their fishing permits or (2) surrender their permits, and either scrap their vessels or restrict vessel titles to prevent fishing. These fishing capacity reduction programs, or buybacks, can be funded by a Federal loan to the industry or by direct Federal or other funding. These buybacks are conducted pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-479). The regulations implementing the buybacks are at 50 CFR part 600.
Depending upon the type of buyback involved, the program can entail the submission of buyback requests by industry, the submission of bids, referenda of fishery participants, and reporting of the collection of fees to repay a Federal loan. For buybacks involving State-managed fisheries, the State may need to develop the buyback plan and comply with other information requirements. The information collected by NMFS is required to request a buyback, submit supporting data for requested buybacks, to submit bids, and to conduct referenda of fishery participants.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at 50 CFR 600.1013 through 600.1017 form the basis for this collection of information on fee payment and collection. NMFS requests information from participating buyback participants. This information, upon receipt, tracks the repayment of the Federal loans that are issued as part of the buybacks, and ensures accurate management and monitoring of the loans during the repayment term.
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
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 14, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (“citric acid”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Krisha Hill or Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-5831, respectively.
On December 19, 2011, Yixing Union timely submitted an allegation of a ministerial error with respect to the
A ministerial error as defined in section 751(h) of the Act includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.”
After analyzing Yixing Union's comments, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that a ministerial error existed in a certain calculation in the
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the
We will disclose the calculation performed for these amended final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to interested
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these amended final results of review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where appropriate, we calculated an
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective retroactively on any entries made on or after December 14, 2011, the date of publication of the
These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Toni Page, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1398.
On July 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from India covering the period January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
On August 26, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Jindal, Polyplex, SRF, Vacmet, and Polypacks.
On September 12, 2011, SRF filed a certification of no shipments and requested that the Department rescind the CVD administrative review of the company.
On November 25, 2011, Petitioners timely withdrew their request for CVD administrative reviews of Ester, Garware, Polyplex, and Jindal. The Department published a rescission, in part, of the CVD administrative review with respect to Ester, Garware, Polyplex, and Jindal on January 11, 2012.
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
SRF submitted a letter to the Department on September 12, 2011, certifying that it had no shipments of subject merchandise that entered the United States during calendar year 2010, which is the period of review (POR). Petitioners did not comment on SRF's claim of no shipments or entries.
Previously, on September 1, 2011, the Department released the results of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data query to interested parties with an administrative protective order for this segment of the administrative review, which showed SRF had no suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR. After the receipt of SRF's no shipment certification, we sent a “no shipments inquiry” message to CBP, which posted the message on October 12, 2011.
Based on our analysis of all of the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that SRF had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice,
The Department is setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding the Department's preliminary intent to rescind the administrative review for SRF. Interested parties should submit such comments within 20 calendar days of the publication of this notice. Comments must be filed electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) (
We are issuing this notice in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings completed between April 1, 2011, and June 30, 2011. In conjunction with this list, the Department is also publishing a list of requests for scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations pending as of June 30, 2011. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Julia Hancock, AD/CVD Operations, China/NME Group, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1394.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
None.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of pending scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD
Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230. This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Cristi Reid, (301) 713-1622 x206 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4327) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) require that an environmental analysis be completed for all major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment. NEPA applies only to the actions of Federal agencies. While those Federal actions may include a Federal agency's decision to fund non-Federal projects under grants and cooperative agreements, NEPA requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of actions proposed to be taken by these recipients only when the Federal agency has sufficient discretion or control over the recipient's activities to deem those actions as Federal actions. To determine whether the activities of the recipient of a Federal financial assistance award (i.e., grant or cooperative agreement) involve sufficient Federal discretion or control, and to undertake the appropriate environmental analysis when NEPA is required, NOAA must assess information which can only be provided by the Federal financial assistance applicant. Thus, NOAA has developed an environmental information questionnaire to provide grantees and Federal grant managers with a simple tool to ensure that project and environmental information is obtained. The questionnaire applies only to those programs where actions are considered major Federal actions or to those where NOAA must determine if the action is a major Federal action. The questionnaire includes a list of questions that encompasses a broad range of subject areas. The applicants are not required to answer every question in the questionnaire. Each program draws from the comprehensive list of questions to create a relevant subset of questions for applicants to answer. The information provided in answers to the questionnaire is used by NOAA staff to determine compliance requirements for NEPA and conduct subsequent NEPA analysis as needed. The information provided in the questionnaire may also be used for other regulatory review requirements associated with the proposed project, such as issuance of permits.
Methods of submittal include paper forms via the mail, Internet, and facsimile transmission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 23, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Gary Rule, (503) 230-5424 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed prohibitions against the taking of endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA allows permits authorizing the taking of endangered species for research/enhancement purposes. The corresponding regulations established procedures for persons to apply for such permits. In addition, the regulations set forth specific reporting requirements for such permit holders. The regulations contain two sets of information collections:
(1) Applications for research/enhancement permits, and (2) reporting requirements for permits issued.
The required information is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed activity on endangered species, to make the determinations required by the ESA prior to issuing a permit, and to establish appropriate permit conditions. To issue permits under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must determine that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good faith, (2) if granted and exercised, will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.
The currently approved application and reporting requirements apply to Pacific marine and anadromous fish species; requirements regarding other species are being addressed in a separate information collection.
Submissions may be in paper or electronic format.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee.
The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 8, 2012 and conclude no later than 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.
John Froeschke, Fishery Biologist and Mark Mueller, GIS Analyst, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee to discuss and provide expert guidance to Council staff on two projects being conducted as part of a NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program grant that address the relationship between trends in coral reef communities and their associated fisheries. The first project involves development of a publicly-accessible spatial database of Gulf of Mexico corals (shallow, mesophotic and deep sea) and related fisheries information that will be used to enhance spatial planning and management actions. The Committee will be asked to provide expert advice and recommendations about datasets and data sources as well as data gaps and needs. The second project involves convening a workshop of respected coral experts and managers to examine the interrelationships between corals and fisheries relative to long-term trends in coral condition. The Committee will be asked to provide expert advice and recommendations about participants and various potential conference topics including threats to coral health, management, coral habitats, habitat suitability models, and emerging research.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site,
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Special Coral Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Golden King Crab Price Formula Committee is meeting in Seattle, WA.
The meeting will be held on March 8, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Fishermen's Terminal, Norby Conference Room, 3919 18th Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98199; telephone: (206) 787-3395.
Mark Fina, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.
The Committee is meeting concerning the arbitration system that is part of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program. The Committee will give specific attention to the development of the price formula for golden king crab under the arbitration system. Additional information is posted on the Council Web site:
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene three Web based meetings of the ABC Control Rule Working Group.
The first Webinar meeting will convene on Thursday, March 8, 2012. The second Webinar meeting will convene on Thursday, March 15, 2012. The third Webinar meeting will convene on Thursday, March 22, 2012. Each Webinar will begin at 12 noon eastern time and is expected end by 4 p.m.
The Webinars will be accessible via Internet. Please go to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Web site at
Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The ABC Control Rule Working Group will meet to discuss potential revisions to the acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule that was recently implemented as part of the Council's Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment. While all areas of the control rule will be subject to review, particular attention will be given to whether the P-star approach used to determine ABC in Tier 1 of the control rule realistically captures scientific uncertainty, and possible revisions to the Tier 2 method for data poor stocks. Recommendations from the Working Group will be presented to the Scientific and Statistical Committee when it meets in late March.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630. Materials will also be available to download from the ABC Control Rule Working Group folder of the Council's FTP site, which is accessible from the Quick Links section of the Council Web site (
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the ABC Control Rule Working Group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Working Group will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
These Webinars are accessible to people with disabilities. For assistance with any of our Webinars contact Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; correction.
This action makes a correction to a notice published on December 21, 2011. The notice referenced a control date of March 7, 2011; however the correct date is April 7, 2011. This notice inserts the correct April 7, 2011, control date, as intended.
Travis Ford, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9233.
NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and announced public scoping meetings for the New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Amendment 18 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 18) on December 21, 2011 (76 FR 79153). The subject document contained an error that needs to be corrected.
In the background information for the December 21, 2011 notice there is a reference to a March 7, 2011 control date for the NE multispecies fishery. Because the date reflects the wrong month, therefore, NMFS, through this notice, corrects the control date to April 7, 2011. Other published materials referencing the control date reflect the correct date of April 7, 2011.
The NOI published on December 21, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-32694, on page 79154, in column 2, in the first full paragraph, line 2, correct the month “March” to read as “April.”
16 U.S.C. 1801
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 11-54 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Poland has requested a possible sale of 93 AIM-9X-2 SIDEWINDER Block II Tactical Missiles, 4 CATM-9X-2 Captive Air Training Missiles, 65 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, 42 GBU-49 Enhanced PAVEWAY II 500 lb Bombs, 200 GBU-54 (2000 lb) Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) Bombs, 642 BLU-111 (500 lb) General Purpose Bombs, 127 MK-82 (500 lb) General Purpose Bombs, 80 BLU-117 (2000 lb) General Purpose Bombs, 4 MK-84 (2000 lb) Inert General Purpose Bombs, 9 F-100-PW-229 Engine Core Modules, 28 Night Vision Devices plus 6 spare intensifier tubes, 12 Autonomous Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation P5 pods, a Joint Mission Planning System, and five years of follow-on support and sustainment services for Poland's F-16 fleet, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, system overhauls and upgrades, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical support, and other related elements of program support. The estimated cost is $447 million.
Poland is an important ally in Northern Europe, contributing to NATO activities and ongoing U.S. interests in the pursuit of peace and stability. Poland's efforts in peacekeeping operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to serve U.S. national security interests. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist Poland to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will improve Poland's capability to meet current and future operational needs. The upgrade will allow Poland to continue to bolster its regional leadership while increasing NATO interoperability. Poland already has these missiles and munitions in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing the additional systems into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon Corporation in Tucson, Arizona, Raytheon Corporation in Waltham, Massachusetts, The Boeing Company in St. Charles, Missouri, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma, and United Technologies Corporation in Hartford, Connecticut. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Poland. However, periodic travel to Poland will be required on a temporary basis in conjunction with program, technical, and management oversight and support requirements.
There will be no adverse impact on the U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AIM-9X-2 SIDEWINDER Block II Missile represents a substantial increase in missile acquisition and kinematics performance over the AIM-9M and replaces the AIM-9X-1 Block I missile configuration. The missile includes a high off bore-sight seeker, enhanced countermeasure rejection capability, low drag/high angle of attack airframe and the ability to integrate the Helmet Mounted Cueing System. The software algorithms are the most sensitive portion of the AIM-9X-2 missile. The software continues to be modified via a pre-planned product improvement (P
2. The AIM-9X-2 will result in the transfer of sensitive technology and information. The equipment, hardware, and documentation are classified Confidential. The software and operational performance are classified Secret. The seeker/guidance control section and the target detector are Confidential and contain sensitive state-of-the-art technology. Manuals and technical documentation that are necessary or support operational use and organizational management are classified up to Secret. Performance and operating logic of the counter-countermeasures circuits are classified Secret. The hardware, software, and data identified are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters and similar critical information.
3. The GBU-54 is a 2000lb Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) variant that includes a DSU-40 Laser Sensor. The GBU-54 uses global position system aided inertial navigation and/or laser detection to guide to threat targets. The Laser sensor enhances the standard JDAM's reactive target capability by allowing rapid prosecution of fixed targets with large initial target location errors (TLE). The DSU-40 Laser sensor also provides the capability to engage some mobile targets. The DSU-40 Laser sensor is attached to an MK-84 or BLU-117 bomb body in the forward fuze well. The addition of the DSU-40 Laser sensor, combined with additional cabling and mounting hardware, turns a standard GBU-31 JDAM into a GBU-54 Laser JDAM. Information that might reveal target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures, and the electromagnetic environment is classified Secret.
4. The JDAM is actually a guidance kit that converts existing unguided free-fall bombs into precision-guided “smart” munitions. By adding a new tail section containing Inertial Navigation System (INS) guidance/Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance to unguided bombs, the cost effective JDAM provides highly accurate weapon delivery in any “flyable” weather. The INS, using updates from the GPS, helps guide the bomb to the target via the use of movable tail fins.
5. The AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature solid-state electronics. The AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high- and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AMRAAM All Up Round (AUR) is classified Confidential. The major components and subsystems range from Unclassified to Confidential,
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to alter a system of records.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The proposed action will be effective on March 22, 2012 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
*
Mr. Charles J. Shedrick, Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Air Force Privacy Act Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or by phone at 202-404-6575.
The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on February 14, 2012 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Joint Medical Evacuation System (TRAC
Delete entry and replace with “All Active Duty, Air National Guard, Army National Guard and Reserve components of Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Services or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who have been called to Federal Service, retired personnel of all seven uniformed services, and their family members. All Veterans who are transported to or from a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical facility or of transporting the remains of deceased Veterans who died after transport to a DVA Medical facility. All Active Duty and Reserve components of Air Force, Army, Navy and Coast Guard and other uniformed service members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Secretary of Defense identified coalition National forces, DoD civilian employees, contractors supporting global U.S. operations, Department of Defense detainees and Prisoners of War. Individuals who are employed or contracted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) or other United States (US) government agencies providing health care service, and patient movement in support of identified patients during Presidential disaster or emergency declaration. Employees and their dependents of any mission essential agency of the U.S. Government including non-appropriated fund and Exchange Service employees, Air Reserve technicians performing duties as civil servants, family members (dependents) who reside overseas and their civil service personnel sponsor stationed overseas requiring transfer to another medical treatment facility at the request of U.S. Government medical treatment facilities.”
Delete entry and replace with “TRAC
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Medical and Dental Care; 10 U.S.C. 2641, Transportation of Certain Veterans on DoD Aeromedical Evacuation Aircraft; DoD Directive 5154.6, Armed Services Medical Regulating; DoD Instruction 6000.11, Patient Movement; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “By individual's name and SSN.”
Delete entry and replace with “System Administrator, United States Transportation Command, Office of the Command Surgeon, 203 West Losey Street, Suite 1700, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357.”
Delete entry and replace with “Transferring and receiving treatment facilities, medical regulating offices, evacuation offices, agencies and commands relevant to the patient transfer, and from the Military Health Information System.”
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, March 7, 2012. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regularly scheduled business meeting. The conference session and business meeting both are open to the public and will be held at the West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company, located at 40 West Upper Ferry Road, West Trenton, New Jersey.
The morning conference session will begin at 10:30 a.m. and will consist of presentations on: (a) the
In addition to the hearings on draft dockets, a public hearing also will be held during the 1:30 p.m. business meeting on a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to extend the Commission's agreements with Axys Analytical Services, Ltd. for the analysis of ambient water, wastewater and sediment samples (agreement of July 2010) and fish tissue samples (agreement of September 2006) in connection with the control of certain toxic substances in the Delaware Estuary.
Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the informational meeting, conference session or hearings should contact the Commission Secretary directly at 609-883-9500 ext. 203 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how we can accommodate your needs.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 23, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 23, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Department of Education (the Department), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 23, 2012.
Written comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that Federal agencies provide interested parties an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EAC announces an information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. The EAC, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii), intends to submit this proposed information collection (Election Administration in Urban and Rural Areas) to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for approval. The Election Administration in Urban and Rural Areas survey asks election officials questions concerning voter outreach and election personnel. EAC will conduct the survey as a way to obtain data and information for a mandatory report to Congress as stipulated under HAVA 241 (B)(15), which requires EAC to study “[m]atters particularly relevant to voting and administering election in rural and urban areas.” Further, Section 202(3) of HAVA authorizes EAC to conduct studies and to carry out other duties and activities to promote the effective administration of Federal elections.
Written comments must be submitted on or before 4 p.m. EDT on April 23, 2012.
Comments on the proposed information collection should be submitted electronically to
Ms. Karen Lynn-Dyson or Ms. Shelly Anderson at (202) 566-3100.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of limited waivers.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is hereby granting a nationwide limited waiver of the Buy American requirements of section 1605 of the Recovery Act under the authority of Section 1605(b)(2), (iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality), with respect to Recovery Act projects funded by EERE for ((1) 400 amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station; (2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection; (3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system); and (4) network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol—Staefa brand system—to a non-proprietary open source protocol.
Effective Date: 01/24/2012.
Christine Platt-Patrick, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), (202) 287-1553, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop EE-2K, Washington, DC 20585.
Under the authority of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), Public Law 111-5, section 1605(b)(2), the head of a Federal department or agency may issue a “determination of inapplicability” (a waiver of the Buy American provision) if the iron, steel, or relevant manufactured good is not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality (“nonavailability”). The authority of the Secretary of Energy to make all inapplicability determinations was re-delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), for EERE projects under the Recovery Act, in Redelegation Order No. 00-002.01E, dated April 25, 2011. Pursuant to this delegation the Acting Assistant Secretary, EERE, has concluded that: (1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station; (2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection; (3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system); and (4) network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol—Staefa brand system—to a non-proprietary open source protocol, are not produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality. The above items, when used on eligible EERE Recovery Act-funded projects, qualify for the “nonavailability” waiver determination.
EERE has developed a robust process to ascertain in a systematic and expedient manner whether or not there is domestic manufacturing capacity for the items submitted for a waiver of the Recovery Act Buy American provision. This process involves a close collaboration with the United States Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), in order to scour the domestic manufacturing landscape in search of producers before making any nonavailability determinations.
The MEP has 59 regional centers with substantial knowledge of, and connections to, the domestic manufacturing sector. MEP uses their regional centers to `scout' for current or potential manufacturers of the product(s) submitted in a waiver request. In the course of this interagency collaboration, MEP has been able to find exact or partial matches for
Upon receipt of completed waiver requests for the four products in the current waiver, EERE reviewed the information provided and submitted the relevant technical information to the MEP. The MEP then used their network of nationwide centers to scout for domestic manufacturers. The MEP reported that their scouting process did not locate any domestic manufacturers for these exact or equivalent items.
In addition to the MEP collaboration outlined above, the EERE Buy American Coordinator worked with other manufacturing stakeholders to scout for domestic manufacturing capacity or an equivalent product for each item contained in this waiver.
EERE also conducted significant amounts of independent research to supplement MEP's scouting efforts, including utilizing the solar experts employed by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. EERE's research efforts confirmed the MEP findings that the goods included in this waiver are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality.
The nonavailability determination is also informed by the inquiries and petitions to EERE from recipients of EERE Recovery Act funds, and from suppliers, distributors, retailers and trade associations—all stating that their individual efforts to locate domestic manufacturers for these items have been unsuccessful.
Specific technical information for the manufactured goods included in this non-availability determination is detailed below:
(1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station
These are used in the installation of EV charging stations. Two national trade organizations representing American manufacturers of this equipment verified that these are not manufactured in the US. Further, MEP did not identify a potential manufacturer.
(2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection
These card racks are installed into existing traffic systems and are not manufactured domestically. Neither transportation manufacturing trade associations nor MEP identified any US manufacturer of this product.
(3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system)
This waiver is limited to systems that require compatibility with this extremely high water column. No US manufacturers (four manufacturers of this type of equipment were identified by EERE and MEP and contacted) were able to meet this need.
(4) Network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol- Staefa brand system to a non-proprietary open source protocol
For use where a Staefa system was installed previously, and where utilizing a domestic control module would mean that the existing energy management controls would have to be removed and a new energy management controls system would have to replace the existing Staefa system. This product allows the grantee to convert from the proprietary protocol to an open-source protocol- providing a wider variety of controls in the future.
In these cases, the grantee is unable to use a domestic control module because the existing system runs off of a proprietary communication protocol (rather than LON or BACnet), and the entire system would have to be replaced to install additional controllers. Trade organizations, DOE and MEP all agreed that this was the only controller capable of properly interfacing with this protocol.
In light of the foregoing, and under the authority of section 1605(b)(2) of Public Law 111-5 and Redelegation Order 00-002-01E, with respect to Recovery Act projects funded by EERE, I hereby issue a “determination of inapplicability” (a waiver under the Recovery Act Buy American provision) for: ((1) 400amp Dual Element Time-Delay Fuses for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) charging station; (2) Video imaging card rack mounted boards for vehicle presence and data detection; (3) 20-ton split system heat pump that meets a minimum static pressure requirement of 3.0 inches of water column (only where the 3.0 water column is a requirement of the system); and (4) network manager for conversion of proprietary protocol- Staefa brand system- to a non-proprietary open source protocol.
Having established a proper justification based on domestic nonavailability, EERE hereby provides notice that on January 24, 2012, four (4) nationwide categorical waivers of section 1605 of the Recovery Act were issued as detailed
This waiver determination is pursuant to the delegation of authority by the Secretary of Energy to the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy with respect to expenditures within the purview of his responsibility. Consequently, this waiver applies to all EERE projects carried out under the Recovery Act.
Pub. L. 111-5, section 1605.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of petition for waiver, notice of grant of interim waiver, and request for comments.
This notice announces receipt of and publishes the LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (LG) petition for waiver and application for interim waiver (hereafter, “petition”) from specified portions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure for determining the energy consumption of clothes washers. Today's notice also grants an interim waiver of the clothes washer test procedure. Through this notice, DOE also solicits comments with respect to the LG petition.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information with respect to the LG petition March 22, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by case number CW-023, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mail Stop EE-2J, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Mail Stop GC-71, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, which includes the clothes washers that are the focus of this notice.
The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions that enable a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements for covered products. The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (the Assistant Secretary) will grant a waiver if it is determined that the basic model for which the petition for waiver was submitted contains one or more design characteristics that prevents testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or if the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(l)), 431.401(f)(4). Petitioners must include in their petition any alternate test procedures known to the petitioner to evaluate the basic model in a manner representative of its energy consumption. 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iii), 430.401(b)(1)(iii). The Assistant Secretary may grant the waiver subject to conditions, including adherence to alternate test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(l), 431.401(f)(4). Waivers remain in effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 430.27(m) or 430.401(g), as appropriate.
The waiver process also allows the Assistant Secretary to grant an interim waiver from test procedure requirements to manufacturers that have petitioned DOE for a waiver of such prescribed test procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(g), 430.401(e)(3). An interim waiver remains in effect for 180 days or until DOE issues its determination on the petition for waiver, whichever is sooner. DOE may extend an interim waiver for an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 430.27(h), 430.401(e)(4).
On December 23, 2010, DOE issued enforcement guidance on the application of waivers for large-capacity clothes washers and announced steps to improve the waiver process and refrain from certain enforcement actions. This guidance can be found on DOE's Web site at
On November 28, 2011, LG submitted a petition for waiver from the DOE test procedure applicable to automatic and semi-automatic clothes washers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J1. LG requested the waiver for specified basic models with capacities greater than 3.8 cubic feet because the mass of the test load used in the procedure, which is based on the basket volume of the test unit, is currently not defined for basket sizes greater than 3.8 cubic feet. Table 5.1 of Appendix J1 defines the test load sizes used in the test procedure as linear functions of the basket volume. LG requests that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on a revised Table 5.1. The table is identical to the Table 5.1 found in DOE's clothes washer test procedure Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 75 FR 57556 (September 21, 1010). DOE notes that the Table 5.1 proposed in the September 2010 NOPR was amended to correct rounding errors in the supplemental proposed rule issued on July 26, 2011
An interim waiver may be granted if it is determined that the applicant will experience economic hardship if the application for interim waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate relief pending a determination of the petition for waiver. (10 CFR 430.27(g), 430.401(e)(3)).
DOE has determined that LG's application for interim waiver does not provide sufficient market, equipment price, shipments, and other manufacturer impact information to permit DOE to evaluate the economic hardship LG might experience absent a favorable determination on its application for interim waiver. DOE has determined, however, that it is likely LG's petition will be granted, and that it is desirable for public policy reasons to grant LG relief pending a determination on the petition. Previously, DOE granted test procedure waivers to other manufacturers for products with capacities larger than currently specified in the test procedure.
The current DOE test procedure specifies test load sizes only for machines with capacities up to 3.8 cubic feet. For the reasons set forth in DOE's September 2010 NOPR, DOE believes that extending the linear relationship between test load size and container capacity to larger capacities is valid. In addition, testing a basic model with a capacity larger than 3.8 cubic feet using the current procedure could evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Based on these considerations, and the waivers granted to LG and other manufacturers for similar models, it appears likely that the petition for waiver will be granted. DOE also believes that the energy efficiency of similar products should be tested and rated in the same manner. As a result, DOE grants an interim waiver to LG for the basic models of clothes washers with container volumes greater than 3.8 cubic feet specified in its petition for waiver, pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(g) . DOE also provides for the use of an alternative test procedure extending the linear relationship between test load size and container capacity, described below. Therefore,
The application for interim waiver filed by LG is hereby granted for the specified LG clothes washer basic models, subject to the specifications and conditions below.
LG shall be required to test and rate the specified clothes washer products according to the alternate test procedure as set forth in section III, “Alternate Test Procedure.”
The interim waiver applies to the following basic residential model groups:
DOE makes decisions on waivers and interim waivers for only those models specifically set out in the petition, not future models that may be manufactured by the petitioner. LG may submit a subsequent petition for waiver and request for grant of interim waiver, as appropriate, for additional models of clothes washers for which it seeks a waiver from the DOE test procedure. In addition, DOE notes that grant of an interim waiver or waiver does not release a petitioner from the certification requirements set forth at 10 CFR part 429.
EPCA requires that manufacturers use DOE test procedures to make representations about the energy consumption and energy consumption costs of products covered by the statute. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent representations are important for manufacturers to use in making representations about the energy efficiency of their products and to demonstrate compliance with applicable DOE energy conservation standards. Pursuant to its regulations applicable to waivers and interim waivers from applicable test procedures at 10 CFR 430.27, DOE will consider setting an alternate test procedure for LG in a subsequent Decision and Order.
The alternate procedure approved today is intended to allow LG to make valid representations regarding its clothes washers with basket capacities larger than provided for in the current test procedure. This alternate test procedure is based on the expanded Table 5.1 of Appendix J1 that appears in DOE's clothes washer test procedure NOPR (75 FR 57556, Sept. 21, 1010), altered slightly to correct rounding errors as specified in DOE's supplemental proposal issued on July 26, 2011.
During the period of the interim waiver granted in this notice, LG shall test its clothes washer basic models according to the provisions of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J1, except that the expanded Table 5.1 below shall be substituted for Table 5.1 of appendix J1.
Through today's notice, DOE announces receipt of LG's petition for waiver from certain parts of the test procedure that apply to clothes washers and grants an interim waiver to LG. DOE is publishing LG's petition for waiver in its entirety pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), 430.401(b)(1)(iv). The petition contains no confidential information. The petition includes a suggested alternate test procedure to measure the energy consumption of clothes washers with capacities larger than the 3.8 cubic feet specified in the current DOE test procedure.
DOE solicits comments from interested parties on all aspects of the petition. Pursuant to 10 CFR 430.27(b)(1)(iv), 430.401(c)(1), any person submitting written comments to DOE must also send a copy of such comments to the petitioner. The contact information for the petitioner is John I. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and Communications, LG Electronics USA, Inc., 1776 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
All submissions received must include the agency name and case number for this proceeding. Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), or text (American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII)) file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Wherever possible, include the electronic signature of the author. DOE does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes).
LG Electronics, Inc. (LG) respectfully submits this Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 430.27, as related to DOE's test procedure for clothes washers. DOE has already granted LG waivers relating to testing of certain models. 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011); 75 Fed. Reg. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010). The current Petition and Application would expand the number of models subject to the grant of a waiver.
LG is a manufacturer of clothes washers and other products sold worldwide, including in the United States. LG's U.S. operations are LG Electronics USA, Inc., with headquarters at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 (tel. 201-
The test procedure under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq., provides for clothes washers to be tested with specified allowable test load sizes. See 10 C.F.R. Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. Jl, Table 5.1. The largest average load under Table 5.1 is 9.20 lbs. LG believes that it is appropriate for DOE to grant a waiver that would allow for testing and rating of specified models (see Appendix 1 hereto) with larger test loads where the model has a container volume that is greater than the largest volume shown on Table 5.1.
DOE has already granted waivers and/or interim waivers to a number of manufacturers, including LG, Whirlpool, General Electric, Samsung, and Electrolux for testing with larger test loads for specified models with container volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011) (LG); id. 70996 (Nov. 16, 2011) (Samsung); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011) (LG); id. 48149 (Aug. 8, 2011) (Samsung); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011 (LG); id. 21881 (April 19, 2011) (Samsung); id. 13169 (March 10, 2011) (Samsung); id. 11440 (March 2, 2011) (Electrolux); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011) (LG); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011) (LG); 75 Fed. Reg. 81258 (Dec. 27, 2010) (Electrolux); id. 76968 (Dec. 10, 2010) (GE); id. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010) (LG); id. 57915 (Sept. 23, 2010) (GE); id. 57937 (Sept. 23, 2010) (Samsung); id. 69653 (Nov. 15, 2010) (Whirlpool); id. 76962 (Dec. 10, 2010) (Electrolux); id. 76968 (Dec. 10, 2010) (GE); id. 81258 (Dec. 27, 2010) (Electrolux); 71 Fed. Reg. 48913 (Aug. 22, 2006) (Whirlpool). The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) has submitted comments to DOE suggesting that the DOE test procedure be amended to provide for testing with loads in excess of those shown in Table 5.1 when testing is done on clothes washers with volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. See AHAM Comments on the Framework Document for Residential Clothes Washers; EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019; RIN 1904-AB90, at Appendix B—AHAM Proposed Changes to J1 Table 5.1 (Oct. 2, 2009). In addition, DOE has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to adopt the AHAM proposed Table 5.1. 75 Fed. Reg. 57556 (Sept. 21, 2010). And it has issued Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemakings to the same effect. 76 Fed. Reg. 69870 (Nov. 9, 2011); id. 49238 (Aug. 9, 2011). Further, DOE has issued a guidance document indicating the appropriateness of waivers for testing with larger test loads for clothes washers with volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet. DOE, IGC Enforcement Guidance on the Application of Waivers and on the Waiver Process (Dec. 23, 2010), at
LG requests that DOE grant a waiver for testing and rating based on the revised Table 5.1 in Appendix 2 hereto. This is the Table 5.1 as already set forth in the waivers granted to LG for certain models. See 76 Fed. Reg. 70999 (Nov. 16, 2011); id. 64330 (Oct. 18, 2011); id. 21879 (April 19, 2011); id. 11228 (March 1, 2011); id. 11233 (March 1, 2011); 75 Fed. Reg. 71680 (Nov. 24, 2010). The revised Table 5.1 should be applied to LG's testing and rating of other models as specified in Appendix 1 hereto.
The waiver should continue until DOE adopts an applicable amended test procedure.
LG also requests an interim waiver for its testing and rating of the foregoing models. The petition for waiver is likely to be granted, as evidenced not only by its merits, but also because DOE has granted waivers and/or interim waivers to LG, Whirlpool, GE, Samsung, and Electrolux and has proposed a corresponding amendment to its test procedure. Hence, grant of an interim waiver for LG is appropriate.
We would be pleased to discuss this request with DOE and provide further information as needed.
LG requests expedited treatment of the Petition and Application. In that regard, DOE has stated in its December 23, 2010 Enforcement Guidance (supra) that it “commits to act promptly on waiver requests.” LG repeated this in its March 7, 2011 notice concerning its certification, compliance and enforcement rule. 76 Fed. Reg.12422, 12442 (“The Department renews its commitment to act swiftly on waiver requests”).
We hereby certify that all manufacturers of domestically marketed units of the same product type have been notified by letter of this petition and application, copies of which letters are set forth in Appendix 3 hereto.
The waiver and interim waiver requested herein should apply to testing and rating of the following model series of LG-manufactured clothes washers. Please note that the actual model numbers will vary to account for such factors as year of manufacture, product color, or other features. Nonetheless, they will always have volumes in excess of 3.8 cubic feet.
(In the chart below, “#” represents a number; “*” represents a letter.)
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/12.
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
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 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission has received two preliminary permit applications deemed filed on May 3, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.,
On February 22, 2012, at 9:00 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 April 1, 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 February 6, 2012, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, filed in Docket No. CP12-57-000, an application pursuant to section 157.21 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, to replace natural gas compression facilities at its Elk Basin compressor station in Park County, Wyoming, under Williston Basin's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000
Williston Basin proposes to replace two natural gas-fired 225-horsepower (HP) compressor units installed in 1941, two natural gas-fired 330-HP compressor units installed in 1950, and one natural gas-fired 1,100-HP compressor unit installed in 1970 with one electric-driven 2,500-HP compressor unit. Williston Basin states that the new 2,500-HP electric compressor unit will also increase the certificated horsepower at the Elk Basin compressor station from 4,610 HP to 4,900 Hp. Williston Basin estimates that the proposed electric replacement compressor unit would cost $8,706,486 to install.
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Keith A. Tiggelaar, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company, 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, telephone (701) 530-1560 or Email:
This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after 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 and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), 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 filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of decision granting an authorization and waiver of preemption for California's mobile cargo handling equipment regulation at ports and intermodal rail yards.
Pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7543(e), EPA is granting California its request for authorization to enforce it emission standards and other requirements for its mobile cargo handling equipment regulation. To the extent that the mobile cargo handling equipment regulation pertains to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines
Under 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 23, 2012. Under 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0862. 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
David Dickinson, 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) 343-9256. Fax: (202) 343-2800. Email:
In a letter dated January 29, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA its waiver and authorization request pursuant to section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), regarding its regulations for Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail yards (Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment or CHE).
EPA published a
CARB has requested that EPA grant a waiver of preemption or grant a new authorization for certain portions of its CHE regulations. For other portions of its CHE regulation, CARB has requested that EPA find the requirements fall within the scope of a previously granted waiver or authorization, or in the alternative grant a new waiver of preemption or authorization. Finally, for one portion of its CHE regulation, CARB has requested that EPA find the requirements are not preempted by section 209 of the Clear Air Act, that if EPA finds they are preempted, the requirements fall within the scope of a previously granted waiver or, in the alternative, EPA grant a new waiver of preemption.
CARB's CHE regulations set performance standards for engines equipped in newly purchased, leased, or rented (collectively known as “newly acquired”), as well as in-use, mobile cargo handling equipment used at ports or intermodal rail yards in California. The standards vary depending on the type of vehicle, whether the engine is used in off-road equipment or a vehicle registered as an on-road motor vehicle, and whether they are newly acquired or already in-use.
Yard trucks and other mobile cargo handling equipment registered to operate on California highways acquired after January 1, 2007 must be equipped with engines that are certified to the on-road engine emission standards for the model year in which they are acquired.
Any yard truck not registered for on-road operation (off-road yard trucks) acquired after January 1, 2007 must be equipped either with an engine certified to the on-road emission standards for the model year in which it is acquired or the final Tier-4 off-road emission
Engines in newly acquired CHE other than yard trucks that are not registered for on-road operation (non-yard trucks) must—if technically feasible and available for purchase, lease, or rental—meet one of two certification standards: (1) The on-road engine certification standards or (2) the off-road Tier 4 certification standards for the model year and rated power of the engine. Alternatively, if neither of the options is feasible or available, a newly acquired non-yard truck must be equipped with an engine that is certified to the most stringent off-road engine emission standards for the type of vehicle and application for the model year in which it is acquired. In addition, under this alternative, within one year of acquiring the vehicle, the owner or operator must install the highest level verified diesel emission control strategy (VDECS) that is approved by CARB and available for that engine. If no VDECS is verified by CARB and available by the end of the one-year period, the owner or operator must install the highest level VDECS within six months after one becomes available.
For in-use yard trucks, whether on-road or off-road, the regulations require they meet one of three compliance options: such vehicles must (1) be certified to the 2007 or later model year on-road engine standards; (2) be certified to Tier 4 off-road standards; or (3) apply VDECS that reduce emissions to levels that comply with diesel PM and NOx emissions of a certified final Tier 4 off-road diesel engine for the same power rating.
The date by which each in-use yard truck in an owner or operator's fleet must be brought into compliance depends on the number of trucks in the fleet, the model year of the trucks, whether the trucks are equipped with on-road or off-road engines, and whether the engines were equipped with VDECS by December 31, 2006.
For in-use non-yard trucks, the regulations identify and establish separate requirements for three categories or vehicles: Basic cargo handling equipment, bulk cargo handling equipment and rubber-tired gantry (RTG) cranes. Basic cargo handling equipment consists of top handlers, side handlers, reach stackers, forklifts, straddle carriers and any other type of equipment (other than RTG cranes) that handles cargo containers. Bulk cargo handling equipment consists of dozers, loaders, excavators, mobile cranes, sweepers, railcar movers, aerial lifts and any other type of equipment (except forklifts) that handles non-containerized or bulk cargo.
For all three categories of in-use non-yard trucks, vehicles can be brought into compliance using any of three options. Option 1 is the same for all three categories: Use of an engine or power system—including diesel, alternative fueled, or heavy-duty pilot ignition engine—certified to the 2007 or later model year on-road or Tier 4 off-road engine standards for the rated power and model year of the engine.
Option 2 two is identical for basic cargo handling equipment and bulk cargo handling equipment, but varies slightly for RTG cranes. Basic cargo handling equipment and bulk cargo handling equipment must comply by installing a pre-2007 model year certified on-road engine or a certified Tier 2 or Tier 3 off-road engine and applying the highest level VDECS that is certified for the specific engine family and model year. However, if no Level 2 or higher VDECS is available, the engine must be upgraded to either a certified Tier 4 off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS must be installed by December 31, 2015.
Under option 2, RTG cranes use a certified Tier 2 or Tier 3 off-road engine and the highest VDECS available but, in contrast to basic and bulk cargo handling equipment, need not upgrade, regardless of whether or not the highest VDECS available was Level 2 or below.
Option 3 is similar for both basic and bulk cargo handling equipment. Basic cargo handling equipment may comply using a pre-Tier 1 or a Tier 1 off-road engine equipped with the highest level VDECS available. However, if the highest level VDECS available is not Level 3 or higher, the engine must be upgraded to either a certified Tier 4 off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS by December 31, 2015. For bulk cargo handling equipment, the requirements of this option are the same except an upgrade is required if no Level 2 or higher VDECS is initially available. Lastly, under the option 3, RTG cranes may comply using a pre Tier 1 or certified Tier 1 off-road engine equipped with the highest level VDECS available. However, if no VDECS is available or the highest level VDECS is a Level 1 or 2, then the RTG crane engine must be replaced with a Tier 4 certified off-road engine or a Level 3 VDECS must be installed by the later of December 31, 2015 or December 31st of the model year of the initially compliant engine plus 12 years.
The date by which each in-use non-yard truck in an owner or operator's fleet must be brought into compliance depends on the size and model-year composition of the in-use non-yard trucks in the fleet
By letter dated July 26, 2004, CARB requested that EPA grant California a waiver of federal preemption for its 2007 California Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Standards, which primarily align California's standards and test procedures with the federal standards and test procedures for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
On July 18, 2008, CARB notified EPA of additional regulations and amendments to its new nonroad compression ignition engine regulations. EPA determined that a portion of those regulations fell within the scope of the previously granted authorization and granted a new authorization for the remainder of the regulations.
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.
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 if three conditions are met. These conditions for confirming a within-the-scope request are discussed below.
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 standards for new nonroad engines or vehicles which are not listed under section 209(e)(1), subject to certain restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other things, the criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission standards. On October 8, 2008, the regulations promulgated in that rule were moved to 40 CFR part 1074, and modified slightly. The applicable regulations, 40 CFR § 1074.105, provide:
(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 under section 209(e)(1). 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 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.
EPA can confirm that amended regulations are within the scope of a previously granted waiver of preemption or authorization if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not undermine our previous determination with respect to consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any new issues affecting EPA's prior waiver determinations.
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
EPA sought comment on a range of issues, including whether certain or all of CARBs CHE regulation should be evaluated under the within the scope criteria or under the criteria for a full authorization and waiver of preemption. EPA did not receive any comments contending that any portions of the CHE regulations should be subjected to full waiver or authorization analysis.
CARB maintains that its requirements for newly acquired
CARB also maintains that its requirements for newly acquired off-road yard trucks should be analyzed under the within the scope criteria since the compliance options involve either the use of a 2007 and later MY on-highway heavy-duty diesel engine (and thus the same within the scope rationale noted above) or the use of an engine meeting the final Tier 4 off-road engine standards which EPA previously authorized.
In addition to the requirements associated with newly acquired mobile cargo handling equipment, the CHE regulations also set forth in-use performance standards applicable to non-new yard and non-yard trucks. To the extent the in-use standards apply to yard and non-yard trucks registered on-road, CARB maintains such requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act and therefore do not require a waiver from EPA. To the extent the in-use standards apply to non-new off-road yard and non-yard trucks (those not registered for on-road operation) CARB requests a full authorization from EPA.
Despite CARB's contentions, EPA has determined that California's CHE regulations to the extent they apply to nonroad engines require a full authorization and to the extent they apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines require a full waiver of preemption. While CARB acknowledges their CHE requirements are standards relating to the control of emissions they nevertheless suggest that such standards have either been previously waived or authorized by EPA. However, the analysis does not end there. 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
Therefore, with respect to newly acquired yard and non-yard trucks EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full waiver criteria. Similarly, for newly acquired off-road yard and non-yard trucks EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full authorization criteria.
In addition to the extent the CHE in-use standards apply to yard and non-yard trucks registered on-road EPA agrees with CARB's assessment that such requirements are not preempted by section 209(a) of the Act (which only applies to “new” motor vehicles and “new” motor vehicle engines) and therefore do not require a waiver from EPA. Lastly, to the extent the in-use standards apply to non-new off-road yard and non-yard trucks (those not registered for on-road operation) EPA will evaluate such requirements under the full authorization criteria as requested by CARB.
Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds that California was
Similarly, section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Administrator 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.
EPA previously found that CARBs regulations establishing emission standards for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy duty on-road diesel engines are as protective of the public health and welfare as comparable federal standards.
EPA previously found that CARB's regulations for new nonroad Tier 4 engines are at least as protective of the public health and welfare as comparable federal standards.
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 CHE 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.
Similarly, section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the Administrator finds that California does not need such 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 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,
Similarly, 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).
As noted above, EPA considers CARB's nonroad authorization requests under certain criteria including whether CARB's requirements are consistent with section 209(a) of the Act (to be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, California's requirements must not apply to new motor vehicles or engines). However, in this instance California's CHE requirements affect both new motor vehicles and engines along with affecting nonroad vehicles and engines. To the extent the CHE requirements do affect motor vehicles and engines (CHE motor vehicle requirements) CARB explicitly requests a waiver of preemption under section 209(b) rather than an authorization under section 209(e)(2). EPA is evaluating the CHE motor vehicle requirements under section 209(b). The
No commenter presented otherwise; therefore, EPA cannot deny California's authorization request on the basis that California's CHE requirements are not consistent with section 209(a).
To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act, California's CHE nonroad 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 CHE equipment is not used in farm and construction equipment or vehicles or engines used in locomotives.
As noted above, EPA's evaluation of CARB nonroad authorization requests (e.g. the CHE nonroad requirements) includes consideration of whether their requirements are consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act. In addition, EPA's evaluation of CARB waiver requests (e.g., the CHE motor vehicle requirements) includes consideration of whether their requirements are consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C). Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Act, EPA must deny a California 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, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.
CARB states that the CHE regulations are consistent with section 202(a). CARB states that the technological feasibility of the emission requirements related to yard trucks registered for operation on-road is not disputed since such vehicles need only meet the 2007 on-road engines standards previously waived by EPA. CARB's CHE regulations do not change the underlying test procedures for on-road engines. CARB notes that newly acquired non-yard trucks registered for operation on-road are similar to yard trucks noted above in terms of applicable emission standards and test procedures.
With respect to off-road yard and non-yard trucks CARB notes that the applicable emission standards (either the 2007 on-road standards previously waived by EPA or the Tier 4 nonroad standards previously authorized by EPA) are technologically feasible. CARB also notes that to the extent operators use option 3 (the use of a lower tier engine if option 1 and 2 are not available, and the subsequent installation of VDECS) it is feasible given the number of VDECS verified to date.
EPA received comment from SSAT noting problems with “post 07 yard truck issues” and challenges associated with non-yard trucks and VDECs. With respect to the yard truck issue it appears that SSAT is concerned that it is only able to use a certain manufacturer's engine and such engine has exhaust gas leak issues that includes disabling the EGR system. SSAT contends that it is dealing with a 25% failure rate. CARB notes in response that the exact nature of the failure rate at the terminals is unclear and its conclusions seem to be based on opinion rather than any data in the record. CARB surmises the problem may be associated with maintenance or operational practices. SSAT provided no further explanation as to why the engine it identified is the only usable engine. Based on the limited information submitted by SSAT, and as CARB notes the fact that 38 other terminals have voluntarily acquired new yard trucks equipped with new on-road CI engines with none reporting EGR problems and none submitting comment to EPA, we find that opponents of the waiver have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the new yard truck emission standards are infeasible or otherwise inconsistent with section 202(a).
With regard to non-yard trucks EPA received comment from SSAT and Ports America regarding the use of VDECS for compliance.
CARB provides several responses to concerns of improper operating and plugging VDECS. CARB notes that nine Level 3 emission control devices have been verified for non-yard truck applications and that at least 77 VDECS have been installed on a wide-variety of vehicle applications. CARB understands that while excess soot may plug some VDECS there is strong evidence to suggest that fleet owners are not properly performing manual regeneration or that improper sizing of VDECS with engines may be occurring. This coupled with a lack of concrete information and data from the commenters causes CARB to suggest that a showing of infeasibility had not been shown.
CARB also notes that to the extent the use of VDECS is not available its compliance extension provisions provide ample opportunity for fleet operators to comply with the CHE regulations. CARB responds to the commenters' suggestion that the compliance extension provisions are
Based on the lack of concrete evidence from the commenters that it has incurred unreasonable delays or other difficulties making its compliance with the CHE regulations infeasible, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based on the infeasibility of CARB's compliance provisions.
Finally, with regard to the costs associated with VDECS the commenters note “The cost of [VDECS] typically cost 40k each dropped 50% on `some' systems when the economy took a down turn. We are looking at spending millions of dollars to one or two vendors who charge whatever they feel they can get away with.” CARB replies by noting that nowhere do the commenters assert that the costs make the CHE regulation infeasible. CARB notes that the nature or port terminals and intermodal railroads make them multimillion-dollar businesses with highly polluting equipment. Without hard evidence from the commenters as to why the costs render the regulations infeasible, CARB suggests that costs are a policy question for CARB to consider when adopting the regulation and that EPA should follow its historical practice of deference.
EPA notes that it is required to closely examine costs when making a determination of whether there is evidence in the record to support a finding that CARB's regulations are technologically infeasible. In this instance there is insufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate why the costs of VDECS are inappropriately high when compared to the costs of the underlying vehicles or why the costs are otherwise inappropriately prohibitive. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot make a finding that CARB's CHE regulations are inconsistent with section 202(a) based on considerations of costs.
As noted above, EPA's consideration of the consistency with section 202(a) includes a review of whether California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with federal test procedures. Because CARB's test procedures are incorporated in previously waived and authorized regulations (e.g., the Tier 4 nonroad standards and the 2007 heavy-duty diesel engine regulations) and such regulations harmonize their test procedures with applicable federal test procedures CARB maintains there is no test procedure inconsistency. We have received no comments presented otherwise; therefore, based on the record before me I cannot deny CARB's request based on a lack of test procedure consistency.
EPA's analysis finds that the criteria for granting a full authorization and a full waiver of preemption have been met for CARB's CHE regulations.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a section 209(b) waiver to enforce its own emission standards for new motor vehicles and engines and to grant California a section 209(e) authorization to enforce its own emission standards for nonroad engines and equipment to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. Having given consideration to all the material submitted for this record, and other relevant information, I find that I cannot make the determinations required for a denial of a waiver request pursuant to section 209(b) of the Act nor can I make the determination required for a denial of an authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. Therefore I grant both a waiver of preemption and authorization to the State of California with respect to its CHE regulations as set for the above.
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 engines 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 23, 2012. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notice of Information Collection—Extension Without Change: Demographic Information on Applicants for Federal Employment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a one-year extension of the Demographic Information on Applicants, OMB No. 3046-0046.
Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before April 23, 2012.
Comments should be sent to the Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). (These are not toll-free
Veta Hurst, Federal Sector Programs, Office of Federal Operations, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4498 (voice); (202) 663-4593 (TTY). Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats: large print, Braille, electronic computer disk, and audio-tape. Requests for this notice in an alternate format should be made to the Publications Center at 1-800-699-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY), or (301) 206-9789 (FAX—this is not a toll free number). A copy of the form may be accessed on the EEOC's Web site at
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB regulation
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 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.
While several federal agencies (or components of such agencies) have obtained OMB approval for the use of forms collecting data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability status of applicants, it is not an efficient use of government resources for each federal agency to separately seek OMB approval. Accordingly, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and a proliferation of forms, the EEOC seeks approval of a form that may be used by all (?) federal agencies.
Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained will be used by federal agencies only for evaluating whether an agency's recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race, national origin, sex, or disability status. The voluntary responses are treated in a highly confidential manner and play no part in the job selection process. The information is not provided to any panel rating the applications, to selecting officials, to anyone who can affect the application, or to the public. Rather, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organization area. No information from the form is entered into an official personnel file.
Because of the predominant use of online application systems, which require only pointing and clicking on the selected responses, and because the form requests only eight questions regarding basic information, the EEOC estimates that an applicant can complete the form in approximately 3 minutes or less.
For the Commission.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of adjustments to expenditure limitations and lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold.
As mandated by provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA” or “the Act”), the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “the Commission”) is adjusting certain expenditure limitations and the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold set forth in the Act, to index the amounts for inflation. Additional details appear in the supplemental information that follows.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; (202) 694-1100 or (800) 424-9530.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 431
Under 2 U.S.C. 441a(c), the Commission must adjust the expenditure limitations established by 2 U.S.C. 441a(d) (the limits on expenditures by national party committees, state party committees, or their subordinate committees in connection with the general election campaign of candidates for Federal office) annually to account for inflation. This expenditure limitation is increased by the percent difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 1974).
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for each general election held to fill a seat in the House of Representatives in states with more than one congressional district. This limitation also applies to those states and territories that elect individuals to the office of Delegate or Resident Commissioner.
Both the national and state party committees have an expenditure limitation for a general election held to fill a seat in the Senate or in the House of Representatives in states with only one congressional district. The formula used to calculate this expenditure limitation considers not only the price index but also the voting age population (“VAP”) of the state. The VAP of each state is published annually in the
The national party committees have an expenditure limitation for their general election nominee for President. The formula used to calculate the Presidential expenditure limitation considers not only the price index but also the total VAP of the United States. The Department of Commerce also publishes the total VAP of the United States annually in the
For the convenience of the readers, the Commission is also republishing the contribution limitations for individuals, non-multicandidate committees and for certain political party committees giving to U.S. Senate candidates for the 2011-2012 election cycle:
The Act requires certain political committees to disclose contributions bundled by lobbyists/registrants and lobbyist/registrant political action committees once the contributions exceed a specified threshold amount. The Commission must adjust this threshold amount annually to account for inflation. The disclosure threshold is increased by multiplying the $15,000 statutory disclosure threshold by 1.11578, the difference between the price index, as certified to the Commission by the Secretary of Labor, for the 12 months preceding the beginning of the calendar year and the price index for the base period (calendar year 2006). The resulting amount is rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.
On behalf of the Commission.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Arizona has scheduled elections on April 17, 2012, and June 12, 2012, to fill the U.S. House seat in the 8th Congressional District vacated by Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on April 17, 2012, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and Special General Election on June 12, 2012, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report, a 12-day Pre-General Report, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Arizona Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on April 5, 2012; a 12-day Pre-General Report on May 31, 2012; and a 30-day Post-General Report on July 12, 2012. (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
All principal campaign committees of candidates participating
Political committees filing on a quarterly basis in 2012 are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Arizona Special Primary or Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See chart below for the closing date for each report).
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Arizona Special Primary or General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information in connection with the Arizona Special Election may be found on the FEC Web site at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and Leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold during the special election reporting periods (see charts below for closing date of each period). 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v).
The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold for calendar year 2011 was $16,200. This threshold amount may change in 2012 based upon the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). Once the adjusted threshold amount becomes available, the Commission will publish it in the
On behalf of the Commission.
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 16, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Clifford Stanford, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
ONC expects to interview 100 individuals for the pretest survey as part of the initial implementation year and interview 2,000 individuals for the main survey administered annually for 5 years. The estimated annualized respondent burden is 842 hours.
For more information regarding an Estimated Annual Respondent Burden specifically for cognitive testing please refer to OMB Control No: 0990-0376, Communications Testing for Comprehensive Communication Campaign for HITECH Act (expiration date 07/31/2014; ICR Reference No: 201106-0990-005).
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Kimberly Lane CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Occupational Safety and Health Program Elements in the Wholesale Retail Trade Sector—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. Under Public Law 91-596, sections 20 and 22 (Section 20-22, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970), NIOSH has the responsibility to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. In this capacity, NIOSH proposes to conduct a study to assess the effectiveness of occupational safety and health (OSH) program elements in the wholesale/retail trade (WRT) sector.
Liberty Mutual has estimated direct workers compensation costs to industry in the United States in 2009 to be $50 billion. The WRT industry sector employs over 21 million workers or 19% of the workforce in private industry. In 2007, the majority of non-fatal injuries and illnesses involving days away from work in the WRT sector involved musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs, 29%) or slip/trip/falls (STFs, 22%). For this reason, major strategic NIOSH goals in the WRT sector are to reduce MSDs, STFs and other injuries/illnesses in part by assessing the effectiveness of occupational safety and health (OSH) programs designed to prevent these outcomes. There is some evidence that OSH prevention programs built on key elements (management leadership, employee participation, hazard identification and control, medical management, training, and program evaluation) reduce losses. However, little evidence exists on the relative effectiveness of program elements compared to each other. There is a need for research to develop reliable OSH program metrics and determine which elements have the greatest impact on injuries, illnesses and work disability. A renewed partnership between NIOSH and the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation (OBWC) provides a timely opportunity to conduct such research in a relevant and efficient manner.
A collaborative study involving NIOSH and the OBWC will examine the association between survey-assessed OSH program elements (organizational policies, procedures, practices) and workers compensation (WC) injury/illness outcomes in a stratified sample of OBWC-insured wholesale/retail trade (WRT) firms. Crucial OSH program elements with particularly high impact on WC losses will be identified in this study and disseminated to the WRT sector. This study will provide important information that is not currently available elsewhere on the effectiveness of OSH programs for the WRT sector. This project fits the mission of CDC-NIOSH to conduct scientific intervention effectiveness research to support the evidenced based prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses.
For this study, the target population includes United States WRT firms (North American Industry Classification System codes 42, 44, 45). The sampling frame includes OBWC-insured WRT firms in Ohio. The study sample includes OBWC-insured WRT firms who volunteer to participate in the OBWC-NIOSH research project.
The proposed research involves a firm-level survey of a series of organizational metrics considered to be potential predictors of injury and illness WC claim rates and duration in a stratified sample of OBWC-insured WRT firms in Ohio. There are expected to be up to 4,404 participants per year; surveys will be administered twice to the same firms in successive years (
An individual responsible for the OSH program at each firm will be asked to complete a survey that includes a background section related to respondent and company demographics and a main section where individuals will be asked to evaluate organizational metrics related to their firm's OSH program. The firm-level survey data will be linked to five years of retrospective injury and illness WC claims data and two years of prospective injury and illness WC claims data from OBWC to determine which organizational metrics are related to firm-level injury and illness WC claim rates. A nested study will ask multiple respondents at a subset of 60 firms to participate by completing surveys. A five-minute interview will be conducted with a 10% sample of non-responders (up to 792 individuals).
In order to maximize efficiency and reduce burden, a Web-based survey is proposed for the majority (95%) of survey data collection. Collected information will be used to determine whether a significant relationship exists between self-reported firm OSH elements and firm WC outcomes while controlling for covariates. Once the study is completed, benchmarking reports about OSH elements that have the highest impact on WC losses in the WRT sector will be made available through the NIOSH-OBWC Internet sites and peer-reviewed publications.
In summary, this study will determine the effectiveness of OSH program elements in the WRT sector and enable evidence-based prevention practices to be shared with the greatest audience possible. NIOSH expects to complete data collection in 2014. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
The Type of Information Collection Request, Use, Frequency, Affected Public and Total Respondents are described in the 60-day notice that published on December 16, 2011 (76 FR 78265) and are not repeated here. However, the Total Annual Responses, and Total Annual Hours have been revised to 331,178 and 1,805,301, respectively. In addition, the model notices associated with this information collection request are now available for public viewing and comments. The model notices were still under development when the 60-day notice published. In the interest of ensuring that the public is aware of the revised supporting materials and has additional time to review and comment on those materials, we are publishing this notice and are reopening the public comment period for 15 days.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by March 2, 2012:
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning each of the addenda published in this notice.
Among other things, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, State governments, State Medicaid agencies, State survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
While we are publishing the quarterly notice required by section 1871(c) of the Act, we will no longer republish duplicative information that is available to the public elsewhere. We believe this approach is in alignment with CMS' commitment to the general principles of the President's Executive Order 13563 released January 2011 entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” which promotes modifying and streamlining an agency's regulatory program to be more effective in achieving regulatory objectives. Section 6 of Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to identify regulations that may be “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” This approach is also in alignment with the President's Open Government and Transparency Initiative that establishes a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.
Therefore, this quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This information is the most current up-to-date information, and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the Web site list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the Web site offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance, Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program, and Program No. 93.714, Medical Assistance Program.
On February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), which establishes the Emergency Contingency Fund for State TANF Programs (Emergency Fund) as section 403(c) of the Social Security Act (the Act). This legislation provides up to $5 billion to help States, Territories, and Tribes in fiscal year (FY) 2009 and FY 2010 that have an increase in assistance caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or in expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The Recovery Act made additional changes to TANF extending supplemental grants through FY 2010, expanding flexibility in the use of TANF funds carried over from one fiscal year to the next, and adding a hold-harmless provision to the caseload reduction credit for States and Territories serving more TANF families.
The Emergency Fund is intended to build upon and renew the principles of work and responsibility that underlie successful welfare reform initiatives. The Emergency Fund provides resources to States, Territories, and Tribes to support work and families during this difficult economic period.
On July 20, 2009 we issued a Program Instruction accompanied by the Emergency Fund Request Form (OFA-100), and instructions for jurisdictions to complete the OFA-100 to apply for emergency funds.
Failure to collect this data would compromise ACF's ability to monitor caseload and expenditure data that must increase in order for jurisdictions to receive awards under the Emergency Fund.
Documentation maintenance on financial reporting for the Emergency Fund is governed by 45 CFR 92.20 and 45 CFR 92.42.
ACF is planning to extend the information collection with the adjustment to the Estimated Annual Burden shown in the table below. Based on our projections for a lower Estimated Annual Burden, we have revised the Number of Responses per Respondent to 1 from its previous number of 5. Because the Number of Responses per Respondent has been revised, the Estimated Total Burden Hours is now 2,232, down from its previous number of 11,160.
State, Territory, and Tribal agencies administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program that are applying for the Emergency Fund.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 milligrams (mg), were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for ropinerole hydrochloride extended-release tablets, 3 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Jay Sitlani, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6370, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (§ 314.162 (21 CFR 314.162)).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, are the subject of NDA 22-008, held by GlaxoSmithKline, and initially approved on June 13, 2008. REQUIP XL is indicated for the treatment of treatment of signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. GlaxoSmithKline has never marketed REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg. In previous instances (see, e.g., 72 FR 9763, 61 FR 25497), the Agency has determined that, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.
Lachman Consultant Services, Inc. submitted a citizen petition dated April 1, 2009 (Docket No. FDA-2009-P-0170), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have found no information that would indicate that this product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to REQUIP XL (ropinerole hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, 3 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data.” This draft guidance establishes FDA's recommendation that sponsors and applicants submit nonclinical and clinical study data in a standardized electronic format. The draft guidance recognizes that standardized study data promotes the efficient review of this information. The purpose of this draft guidance is to promote the use of data standards for study data, and increase the number of standardized study data submissions to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by April 23, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Kieu Pham, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4677, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1616, or
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Providing Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data.” FDA routinely receives submissions of the results of scientific studies, including clinical trials and animal studies. For many years, FDA has requested that clinical study data be submitted electronically because paper case report tabulations (CRTs) are universally recognized as being highly inefficient to support analysis and review. The data in paper CRTs are not machine-readable and therefore cannot be easily analyzed using modern analytic software. Although submission of clinical study data in electronic format has become relatively routine, these data are often submitted using nonstandard formats.
FDA has long recognized the advantage of standardizing study data, as have many sponsors and applicants. Data submitted in a standard electronic format are easier to understand, analyze, and review.
This draft guidance establishes FDA's recommendation that sponsors and applicants submit clinical and nonclinical study data in a standard electronic format. As sponsors and applicants move toward standardized electronic study data submissions, there is a need to understand FDA's expectations for such data submissions. This draft guidance provides FDA's current thinking on the submission of study data in a standard electronic format.
The draft guidance refers submitters to FDA's Study Data Standards Resource Web page at
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on submitting standardized study data in electronic format. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 and 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0014, respectively. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under 0910-0078; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have been approved under 0910-0231.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, Implications for Dosing, and Labeling Recommendations.” The revised draft guidance is intended to provide recommendations for sponsors of new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs) for therapeutic biologics regarding in vitro and in vivo studies of drug metabolism, drug transport, and drug-drug, or drug-therapeutic protein interactions.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this revised draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 21, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the revised draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft guidance for industry entitled “Drug Interaction Studies—Study Design, Data Analysis, Implications for Dosing, and Labeling Recommendations.” Drug interactions can result when one drug alters the pharmacokinetics of another drug or its metabolites. Drug interactions also can reflect the additive nature of the pharmacodynamic effect of either drug when taken with the other drug. The main focus of this draft guidance is pharmacokinetic drug interactions. The revised draft guidance reflects the Agency's view that the pharmacokinetic interactions between an investigational new drug and other drugs should be defined during drug development, as part of an adequate assessment of safety and effectiveness. It is important to understand the nature and magnitude of drug-drug interactions for several reasons. Concomitant medications, dietary supplements, and some foods, such as grapefruit juice, may alter metabolism and/or drug transport abruptly in individuals who previously had been receiving and tolerating a particular dose of a drug. Such an abrupt alteration in metabolism or transport can change the known safety and efficacy of a drug.
The revised draft guidance provides recommendations for sponsors of NDAs and BLAs regarding in vitro and in vivo studies of drug metabolism, drug transport, and drug-drug, or drug-therapeutic protein interactions. Namely, the guidance describes in vitro study methodologies, criteria for in vivo studies, in vivo study design, and data analysis in the context of identifying potential drug interactions. The guidance also addresses the implications of drug interactions for dosing and labeling.
In the
This revised draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
This revised draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 201.57 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Early Clinical Trials With Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information ” dated February 2012. The guidance provides certain Investigational New Drug Application (IND) sponsors with recommendations in connection with the submission of INDs for early clinical trials with live biotherapeutic products (LBPs). The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated September 2010.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Benjamin A. Chacko, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Early Clinical Trials With Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information” dated February 2012. The guidance provides certain IND sponsors with recommendations in connection with IND submissions for early clinical trials for LBPs in the United States. The guidance focuses on the chemistry, manufacturing, and control information that should be provided in an IND for early clinical trials evaluating LBPs. The guidance is applicable to INDs of LBPs, whether clinical trials are conducted commercially, in an academic setting, or otherwise.
In the
The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
The guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under 0910-0014.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “E7 Studies in Support of Special Populations: Geriatrics; Questions and Answers.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The questions and answers (Q&A) guidance addresses special considerations for the design and conduct of clinical trials of drugs likely to have significant use in the elderly. The Q&As are intended to provide guidance on the use of geriatric data to adequately characterize and represent the safety and efficacy of a drug for a marketing application, including data collected postmarketing.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Regarding the guidance:
Regarding the ICH:
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory Agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory Agencies in July 2010.
The Q&A guidance addresses special considerations for the design and conduct of clinical trials of drugs that are likely to have significant use in the elderly. The Q&As are intended to provide guidance on the use of geriatric data to adequately characterize and represent the safety and efficacy of a drug for a marketing application, including data collected postmarketing.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document 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.
The purpose of the Rural Health Information Technology Network Development (RHITND) Program, authorized under the Public Health Service Act, Section 330A(f) (42 U.S.C. 254c) as amended by Section 201, Public Law 107-251 of the Health Care Safety Net Amendments of 2002, is to improve health care and support the adoption of Health Information Technology (HIT) in rural America by providing targeted HIT support to rural health networks. HIT plays a significant role in the advancement of the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) priority policies to improve health care delivery. Some of these priorities include: improving health care quality, safety, and efficiency, reducing disparities, engaging both patients and families in managing their health, enhancing care coordination, improving population and public health, and ensuring adequate privacy and security of health information.
The intent of RHITND is to support the adoption and use of electronic health records (EHR) in coordination with the ongoing HHS activities related to the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act (Pub. L. 111-5). This legislation provides HHS with the authority to establish programs to improve health care quality, safety, and efficiency through the promotion of health information technology, including EHR.
For this program, performance measures were drafted to provide data useful to the program and to enable HRSA to provide aggregate program data required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62). These measures cover the principal topic areas of interest to the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHP), including: (a) Access to care; (b) the underinsured and uninsured; (c) workforce recruitment and retention; (d) sustainability; (e) health information technology; (f) network development; and (g) health-related clinical measures. Several measures will be used for this program. These measures will speak to ORHP's progress toward meeting the goals set.
The annual estimate of burden is as follows:
Email comments to
Coast Guard, DHS.
Thirty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0010, Defect/Noncompliance Report and Campaign Update Report. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 22, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2011-1074 to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3652 or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG 2011-1074, and must be received by March 22, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2011-1074], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a comment online via
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, go to
OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (76 FR 77243, December 12, 2011) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of revisions to the following collections of information: 1625-0014, Request for Designation and Exemption of Oceanographic Research Vessels and 1625-0088, Voyage Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast United States. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting these ICRs to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 23, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2012-0077] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet at
Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet at
Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3652, or fax 202-475-3929, for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, 202-366-9826, for questions on the docket.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise these ICRs or decide not to seek approval for the Collections. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2012-0077], and must be received by April 23, 2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-2012-0077], indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material online (
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
1.
2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a proposed revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Emergency Management Institute Course Evaluation Form, which is used to evaluate the quality of course deliveries, facilities, and instructors at the Emergency Management Institute (EMI).
Comments must be submitted on or before March 22, 2012.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005, facsimile number (202) 646-3347, or email address
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Request for Applicants for Appointment to the National Advisory Council.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the National Advisory Council (NAC) to apply for appointment. As provided for in the
The membership application period is from Friday, February 10, 2012 to Friday, March 9, 2012, 5 p.m. EST.
Applications for membership should be submitted by:
•
•
•
Alexandra Woodruff, The Office of the National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Room 832), 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100; telephone (202) 646-3746; fax (540) 504-2331; and email
The National Advisory Council (NAC) is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the
Qualified individuals interested in serving on the NAC are invited to apply for appointment by submitting a Resume or Curriculum Vitae (CV) to the Office of the National Advisory Council as listed in the
Appointees may be designated as Special Government Employees (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code, or as a Representative appointment. Candidates selected for appointment as SGEs are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form (Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Form 450). OGE Form 450 or the information contained therein may not be released to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the
The NAC will meet in plenary session approximately once per quarter. With respect to the quarterly meetings, it is anticipated that the Council will hold at least one teleconference meeting with public call-in lines. Members may be reimbursed for travel and per diem, and all travel for Council business must be approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. DHS strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions. Registered lobbyists, current FEMA employees, Disaster Assistance Employees, FEMA Contractors, and potential FEMA Contractors will not be considered for membership.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Declaration of Owner and Declaration of Consignee When Entry is made by an Agent (CBP Forms 3347 and 3347A). This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components 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 collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.
When entry is made in a consignee's name by an agent who has knowledge of the facts and who is authorized under a proper power of attorney by that consignee, a declaration from the consignee on CBP Form 3347A,
CBP Forms 3347 and 3347A are authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1485(d) and are accessible at
If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day Notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information: 1651-0098.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: NAFTA Regulations and Certificate of Origin. This is a proposed revision and extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be revised with a change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before March 22, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments onthis proposed information collection to the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should beaddressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection,Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulationsand Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs burden to respondents or recordkeepers from the collection of information (a total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
CBP Form 434,
The CBP Form 446,
CBP is also seeking approval of Form 447,
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Community Challenge Planning Grant Program (Challenge Grants). This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of this year's award recipients.
Dwayne S. Marsh, Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-4500, telephone (202) 402-6316. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Service at (800) 877-8339.
The Community Challenge Planning Grant Program fosters reform and reduces barriers to achieving affordable, economically vital, and sustainable communities. Such efforts may include amending or replacing local master plans, zoning codes, and building codes, either on a jurisdiction-wide basis or in a specific neighborhood, district, corridor, or sector to promote mixed-use development, affordable housing, the reuse of older buildings and structures for new purposes, and similar activities with the goal of promoting sustainability at the local or neighborhood level. This Program also
The FY 2011 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in a competition posted on Grants.gov and HUD's Web site on July 27, 2011. Applications were scored and selected for funding based on the selection criteria in that NOFA. The amount appropriated in FY 2011 to fund the Challenge Grant Program was $30 million of which $1 million had been reserved for capacity support grants distributed separately. This notice announces the allocation of $28 million for Community Challenge Planning Grants, of which not less than $3 million is awarded to jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 27 awards made under the competition in Appendix A to this document.
Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 2011) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program (Regional Grants). This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of this year's award recipients.
Dwayne S. Marsh, Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-4500, telephone (202) 402-6316. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Service at (800) 877-8339.
The Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program (Program) supports metropolitan and multijurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of: (1) Economic competitiveness and revitalization; (2) social equity, inclusion, and access to opportunity; (3) energy use and climate change; and (4) public health and environmental impact. The Program places a priority on investing in partnerships, including nontraditional partnerships (e.g., arts and culture, recreation, public health, food systems, regional planning agencies and public education entities) that translate the Livability Principles (Section I.C.1) into strategies that direct long-term development and reinvestment, demonstrate a commitment to addressing issues of regional significance, use data to set and monitor progress toward performance goals, and engage stakeholders and
Funding from this Program will support the development and implementation of Regional Plans for Sustainable Development (RPSD) that:
a. Identify affordable housing, transportation, water infrastructure, economic development, land use planning, environmental conservation, energy system, open space, and other infrastructure priorities for the region;
b. Clearly define a single, integrated plan for regional development that addresses potential population growth or decline over a minimum 20-year time frame, sets appropriate 3- to 5-year benchmark performance targets, and delineates strategies to meet established performance goals;
c. Establish performance goals and measures that are, at a minimum, consistent with the Sustainability Partnership`s Livability Principles;
d. Use geo-coded data sets and other metrics in developing, implementing, monitoring, and assessing the performance goals of various reinvestment scenarios;
e. Provide detailed plans, maps, policies, and implementation strategies to be adopted by all participating jurisdictions over time to meet planning goals;
f. Prioritize projects that facilitate the implementation of the regional plan and identify responsible implementing entities (public, nonprofit, or private) and funding sources;
g. Show how the proposed plan will establish consistency with HUD, Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs and policies, such as Consolidated Plans, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Long Range Transportation Plans, Indian Housing Plans, and Asset Management Plans, including strategies to modify existing plans, where appropriate; and
h. Engage residents and other stakeholders substantively and meaningfully in the development of the shared vision and its implementation early and throughout the process, including communities traditionally marginalized from such processes, while accommodating limited English speakers, persons with disabilities, and the elderly.
The FY 2011 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in a competition posted on
In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 29 awards made under the competition in Appendix A to this document.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Mr. Banks Sewell of Belle Mina Farm Ltd. (applicant) for an enhancement of survival permit (permit) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The permit application includes a proposed candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA), between the applicant, the Land Trust of Huntsville and North Alabama, and the Service for the spring pygmy sunfish. The CCAA would be implemented at the Beaverdam—Moss Creek/Spring Complex within Limestone County, Alabama. We have made a preliminary determination that the proposed CCAA and permit application are eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The basis for this preliminary determination is contained in a draft environmental action statement (EAS). We are accepting comments on the permit application, the proposed CCAA, and the draft EAS.
We must receive comments no later than March 22, 2012.
Persons wishing to review the application, the draft CCAA, and the draft EAS may obtain copies by request from Daniel Drennen, Mississippi Field Office, by phone at 601-321-1127, or via mail or email (see below). The application and related documents will also be available for public inspection, by appointment only, during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office (address listed below) or on our Web site at
Comments concerning the application, the draft CCAA, and the draft EAS should be submitted in writing, by one of the following methods:
Please refer to Permit number TE-40219A-0 when submitting comments.
Daniel Drennen, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Mississippi Field Office, 601-321-1127. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We furnish this notice to provide the public, other State and Federal agencies, and interested Tribes an opportunity to review and comment on the permit application, including the draft CCAA and draft EAS. We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on the proposed Federal action of issuing a permit. Further, we solicit information regarding the adequacy of the permit application, including the proposed CCAA, as measured against our permit issuance criteria found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d).
Under a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species that are proposed for listing under the Act, candidates for listing, or that may become candidates or proposed for listing. Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), and the associated permits we issue under section 10(a)(l)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531. et seq.), encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for species by assuring property owners that they will not be subjected to increased land use restrictions if that species becomes listed under the Act in the future provided certain conditions are met. Application requirements and issuance criteria for permits through CCAAs are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d). See also our policy on CCAAs (64 FR 32 726; June 17, 1999).
The conservation of the spring pygmy sunfish (
The preferred habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish is clear and colorless to slightly stained spring water, spring runs, and associated spring-fed wetlands (Warren 2004). The species is highly localized within these spring pools and is found in association with patches of dense, filamentous submergent vegetation. Spring pygmy sunfish abundance is correlated with specific water quantity and quality parameters (i.e., water flow velocity, turbidity, and water temperatures) and certain associated species such as amphipods, isopods, spring salamanders, crayfish, and snails (Sandel, pers. comm., 2007).
On April 1, 2011, the Service published a 90-day finding on a petition to list the spring pygmy sunfish as endangered under the Act (76 FR 18138). The Service found that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing this species may be warranted, and announced the initiation of a formal status review. For further information on previous Federal actions regarding the species, please refer to the 90-day finding. As a result of our “substantial” 90-day finding, we are currently collecting and analyzing data to assess the species' status. At the end of the yearlong period, the Service will publish a finding, known commonly as a “12-month finding,” on whether or not listing is warranted. In accordance with court-approved settlement entered into last year with Wild Earth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity, if we determine that listing is warranted, our 12-month finding will include a proposed rule to list the spring pygmy sunfish under the Act.
The area to be covered under the proposed CCAA is approximately 3,200 acres within the Beaverdam Springs complex, owned by the applicant and located in Limestone County, Alabama. The proposed CCAA represents a significant milestone in the cooperative conservation efforts for this species and
The applicant agrees to implement conservation measures to address known threats to the spring pygmy sunfish. These measures will help protect the species in the near term and also minimize any incidental take of the species that might occur as a result of conducting other covered activities, if the species becomes listed under the Act in the future. Conservation measures to be implemented by the applicant include: (1) Maintaining up to a 150-foot vegetated buffer zone around Moss Spring Pond; (2) prohibiting cattle access to Moss Spring Pond and the buffer zone described above; (3) creating a protected area of approximately 150 acres, with a 100-150 foot vegetated buffer zone, within the Beaverdam Spring/Creek area, including a portion of “Lowe Ditch”; and (4) refraining from any deforestation, land clearing, industrial development, residential development, aquaculture, temporary or permanent ground water removal installations, stocked farm ponds, pesticide and herbicide use, and impervious surface installation without prior consultation with the Service and the Service's written agreement.
The Land Trust of Huntsville and North Alabama agrees: (1) To be responsible for all reporting requirements, including any changes to the monitoring when necessary for adaptive management; (2) to ensure that annual habitat analyses and site samplings are performed as specified by the CCAA; and (3) to provide funding for part or all of said monitoring activities.
The Service agrees to authorize the applicant to engage in incidental take of the spring pygmy sunfish consistent with this CCAA and to provide technical assistance, including management advice.
The term of the proposed CCAA and associated enhancement of survival permit is twenty (20) years. However, under a special provision of this CCAA, if at any time a 15-percent decline in the status of the species is determined, there will be a reevaluation of the conservation measures set forth in the CCAA. If such a reevaluation reflects a need to change the conservation measures, the revised measures will be implemented by the applicant, or the CCAA will be terminated and the permit surrendered.
When determining whether to issue the permit, we will consider a number of factors and information sources, including the project's administrative record, any public comments we receive, and the application requirements and issuance criteria for CCAAs contained in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d). We will also evaluate whether the issuance of the permit complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service consultation. Our decision to issue the permit will be based on the results of this consultation, as well as on the above findings, our regulations, and public comments.
The proposed CCAA also provides regulatory assurances to the applicant that, in the event of changed and/or unforeseen circumstances, we would not require additional conservation measures, or commitment of additional land, water, or resource use restrictions, beyond the level obligated in this agreement, without the consent of the applicant provided certain conditions are met.
We will evaluate this permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1) of the Act, our regulations, and NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will enter into the CCAA and issue a permit under section 10(a)(l)(A) of the Act to the applicant for take of the spring pygmy sunfish in accordance with the terms of the agreement. We will not make a final decision in this matter until after the end of the 30-day comment period, and we will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.
We provide this notice under both section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531. et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32), and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C 4371 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
All comments we receive become part of our administrative record in this matter. Requests for copies of comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, NEPA, and Service and Department of the Interior policies and procedures. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including personal identifying information—may be made available to the public at any time. While you may ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public disclosure, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.
Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease CACA 50123 from West Coast Land Service. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from November 1, 2010, the date of termination.
Rita Altamira, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication, Division of Energy and Minerals, BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4378.
No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof and 16
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Extension of F-Line Streetcar Service to Fort Mason Center, San Francisco, California.
Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park Service announces availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the extension of the historic streetcar F-line from Fisherman's Wharf to the Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California.
The National Park Service (NPS) will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) not sooner than 30 days after publication in the
The Final EIS is available for public inspection as follows: at the Office of the Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Bldg. 201 Fort Mason, San Francisco, California), and at local public libraries as noted on the Project Web site
The proposed action would extend the historic streetcar F-line from Fisherman's Wharf to the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and to the Fort Mason Center in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). The intended effect of the proposed action is to provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves transportation access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fisherman's Wharf and SF Maritime NHP and the Fort Mason Center in GGNRA, with connection to the regional transit rail services. The Final EIS evaluates potential environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives. Impact topics include the cultural, natural, and socioeconomic environments.
The proposed action is the culmination of a cooperative effort by the National Park Service, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and the Federal Transit Administration. Studies from these agencies identified a need for improved regional and local transit connectivity between the identified urban national parks and existing transit infrastructure. Transit improvements between these parks would help accommodate existing and future visitor demand and enhance operational effectiveness. Based on the agency studies, conceptual approaches to address alternative transportation needs were identified and evaluated against the purpose and need of the project, park management objectives, and operability constraints.
Through an intensive public review process, two action alternatives were identified in addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)—the Preferred Action Alternative has two options for the track turnaround configuration (Alternatives 2A and 2B). Common elements of the Preferred Action Alternatives include the extension of approximately 0.85 mile of new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; approximately 8-9 new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnelFort Mason Tunnel: tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel). The primary difference between Alternatives 2A and 2B involves the location in which the streetcar would turn around at the terminus of the proposed track extension. Under Alternative 2A, the streetcar would turn around via a loop in the Fort Mason Center parking lot (North Loop). Under Alternative 2B, the streetcar would turn around via a loop in the Great Meadow (South Loop).
The Draft EIS was made available for public review for 60 days (March 18-May 23, 2011); the full text and graphics were also posted on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment Web site. A public open house on the proposed action was held on April 20, 2011, and attended by a total of 81 people, during which the Project team collected oral and written comments. In addition, throughout the review period, NPS received a total of 98 comment letters on the proposed action. The majority of those that commented on the Draft EIS supported the proposed action. The public's primary concerns about the preferred alternative included mitigating the loss of parking, displacement of street artist sales spaces, increased traffic congestion, noise and congestion near the Marina neighborhood, conflicts with other planned projects, and mitigating impacts to National Historic Landmark resources. Many also suggested various design ideas and other measures to help reduce these impacts.
In coordination with other affected agencies, and after considering all oral and written comments, the NPS prepared the Final EIS. The analysis revealed Alternative 1 (No Action) to be the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 was found to be the superior alternative with Alternative 2A (North Loop) the preferred option for the Turnaround, and thus NPS's Final Preferred Action Alternative.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before January 21, 2012. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being
In the interest of preservation a three day comment period is requested for the following resource:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of Sept 28, 1976, 16 U.S.C. 1901, and in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 9.17, Randy Elliott has filed a proposed plan of operations to conduct mining operations on lands embracing Mineral Survey No. 923, patented mineral property within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.
National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office—Natural Resources
Rick Obernesser, Superintendent, and Danny Rosenkrans, Senior Management Analyst, (907) 822-5234, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, PO Box 439, Copper Center, Alaska 99573.
30-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Prospecting for Minerals Other than Oil, Gas, and Sulphur on the Outer Continental Shelf, and, in particular, that we are revising form BOEM-0134 to clarify requirements for environmental compliance.
Submit written comments by March 22, 2012.
Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email (
Arlene Bajusz, Office of Policy, Regulations, and Analysis at
Section 1340 states that “* * * any person authorized by the Secretary may conduct geological and geophysical [G&G] explorations in the outer Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with or endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.” Section 1352 further requires that certain costs be reimbursed to the parties submitting required G&G information and data. Regulations implementing these responsibilities are in 30 CFR Part 580 and are the responsibility of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and the OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Prospecting permits are subject to cost recovery under Department of the Interior's implementing policy, and BOEM regulations specify service fees for these requests.
We use the information collected under these regulations to: (1) Ensure there is no environmental degradation, personal harm or unsafe operations and conditions; (2) ensure activities do not damage historical or archaeological sites or interfere with other uses; (3) analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned drilling activities; (4) monitor progress and activities in the OCS; (5) acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; (6) determine eligibility for reimbursement from the Government for certain costs; and (7) determine the qualifications of applicants. BOEM also uses the information collected to understand the G&G characteristics of hard mineral-bearing physiographic regions of the OCS.
We will protect information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR 580.70, “What data and information will be protected from public disclosure?” 30 CFR 550.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection,” 30 CFR part 552, “OCS Oil and Gas Information Program,” and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2). No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.
In addition, § 580.80 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 580 regulation, informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information, and provides the address to which they should send comments.
We again request comments on this information collection on: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information is useful; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden on the respondents.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is announcing the availability of its updated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook. This handbook is intended for use as guidance by Reclamation's NEPA practitioners. It provides a quick reference for existing laws, regulations, policies, and other guidance. It is a guidance document, and as such, does not create or alter any policy or otherwise implement any law and should not be cited as a source of authority. Reclamation is announcing the availability of its NEPA Handbook to assure transparency of its efforts to the public.
The updated Reclamation NEPA Handbook is available online at
Cathy Cunningham, Water and Environmental Resources Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225; telephone 303-445-2875.
Institution of Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 13, 2012, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Mondis Technology, Ltd., of London, England. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain video displays and products using and containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,247,090 (“the `090 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,089,342 (“the `342 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2011).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain video displays and products using and containing same
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d)-(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Department of Justice.
Notice of a new system of records and removal of three systems of records notices.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, notice is hereby given that the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) proposes to establish a new Department-wide system of records notice, entitled Debt Collection Enforcement System, JUSTICE/DOJ-016. The purpose of publishing this Department-wide system notice is to reflect the Department's consolidation of its multiple debt collection systems, which were previously maintained in various individual DOJ components, into a single, centralized system. The new system will be used by all DOJ components that currently have debt collection and enforcement responsibilities. The Department's consolidation of its debt collection systems enables the Department to improve data integrity, facilitate communication among DOJ components, support Department-wide debt collection initiatives, provide for better accountability and timely reporting, and centralize administrative functions and payment processing.
Because this system notice reflects the consolidation of existing DOJ debt collection and enforcement systems, this notice replaces, and the Department hereby removes the following system notices previously published by individual DOJ components:
1. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, “Debt Collection Enforcement System,” JUSTICE/USA-015 (71 FR 42118, Jul. 25, 2006);
2. Justice Management Division (JMD), “Debt Collection Management System,”
JUSTICE/JMD-006 (58 FR 60058, Nov. 12, 1993); and
3. JMD, “Debt Collection Offset Payment System,” JUSTICE/JMD-009 (62 FR 33438, Jun. 19, 1997).
Also, this notice now covers debt collection records that previously have been part of or included in the following systems of records notices:
1. Antitrust Division, “Antitrust Information Management Information System (AMIS)—Monthly Report,” JUSTICE/ATR-006 (63 FR 8659, Feb. 20, 1998) and “Antitrust Division Case Cards,” JUSTICE/ATR-007 (60 FR 52692, Oct. 10, 1995);
2. Civil Division, “Central Civil Division Case File System,” JUSTICE/CIV-001 (63 FR 8659, Feb. 20, 1998);
3. Civil Rights Division, “Central Civil Rights Division Index File and Associated Records,” JUSTICE/CRT-001 (68 FR 47611, Aug. 11, 2003);
4. Criminal Division, “Central Criminal Division Index File and Associated Records,” JUSTICE/CRM-001 (72 FR 44182, Aug. 7, 2007);
5. Environment and Natural Resources Division, “Environment and NaturalResources Division Case and Related Files,” JUSTICE/ENRD-003 (65 FR 8990, Feb. 23, 2000); and
6. Tax Division, “Criminal Tax Files, Special Project Files, Docket Cards and Associated Records,” JUSTICE/TAX-001 (71 FR 11447, Mar. 7, 2006) and “Tax Division Civil Tax Case Files, Docket Cards, and Associated Records,” JUSTICE/TAX-002 (71 FR 11449, Mar. 7, 2006).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any comments by March 22, 2012.
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress are invited to submit any comments to the Department of Justice, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Department of Justice, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20530, or by facsimile at (202) 307-0693.
Holley B. O'Brien, Director, Debt Collection Management Staff (DCM), Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, 145 N Street, NE., Room 5E.101, Washington, DC 20530, at (202) 514-5343.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress on the new system of records.
Debt Collection Enforcement System
Unclassified.
The Justice Data Center, Rockville, MD 20854; and the DOJ components and offices throughout the country that have debt collection and enforcement records and/or responsibilities, including the Antitrust Division, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Justice Management Division (JMD) Debt Collection Management Staff (DCM), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and the Tax Division. Records may also reside in offices of private counsel retained by DOJ pursuant to contract (contract private counsel) to assist with debt collection.
Individuals indebted to the United States who have either: (1) Allowed their debts to become delinquent and whose delinquent debts have been referred to a DOJ litigating division, a United States Attorney Office (USAO), or to contract private counsel retained by DOJ, for settlement or enforced collection through litigation; and/or (2) incurred debts assessed by a federal court, e.g., fines or penalties in connection with civil or criminal proceedings.
In addition, the categories of individuals covered by the system include persons who are authorized to access and use the system. These individuals are Department of Justice employees and contractors.
This system of records contains records relating to the negotiation, compromise, settlement, and litigation of debts owed the United States, as well as for any amounts that the United States is authorized by law to collect for the benefit of any person or entity.Records consist of debt collection case files, as well as automated and/or hard-copy supporting data, as summarized below.
Case files include: evidence of indebtedness, judgment, or discharge; court filings such as legal briefs, pleadings, judgments, orders, and settlement agreements; litigation reports and related attorney work product; and agency status reports, memoranda, correspondence, and other documentation developed during the negotiation, compromise, settlement and/or litigation of debt collection activities.
Automated and/or hard-copy supporting data include information extracted from the case file and information generated or developed in support of federal debt collection activities. Such information may include: personal data (e.g., name, social security number, date of birth, taxpayer identification number, locator information, etc.); claim details (e.g., value and type of claim, such as benefit overpayment, loan default, bankruptcy, etc.); demand information, settlement negotiations, and compromise offered; account information (e.g., debtors' payments, including principal, penalties, interest, and balances, etc.); information regarding debtors' employment, assets, ability to pay, property liens, etc.; data regarding debtors' loans or benefits from client agencies or other entities; information on the status and disposition of cases at various times; data related to the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), which includes offsets by the Internal Revenue Service against income tax refunds, offsets of the salaries and benefits of federal employees or members of the Armed Forces, and other administrative offsets; and any other information related to the negotiation, compromise, settlement, or litigation of debts owed the United States and others, or to the administrative management of debt collection efforts.
The system also contains records regarding authorized system users, including audit log information and records relating to verification or authorization of an individual's access to the system. This information includes user name, date and time of use, search terms and filters, results that the user accessed, and a user's permissions and authorizations for particular data at that time.
This system is established and maintained pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982, Public Law 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749 (1982), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E (original version at Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 132 (1996)), the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 3001-3307 (original version at Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4933 (1990)), 28 U.S.C. 516, 28 U.S.C. 547, and 44 U.S.C. 3101. More specifically, 28 U.S.C. 516, 519, and 547 authorize the Attorney General to conduct litigation to collect delinquent debts due the United States. In addition, 31 U.S.C. 3718(b) authorizes the Attorney General to contract with private counsel to assist DOJ in collecting debts due the United States. The Attorney General is further authorized by 28 U.S.C. 3101 et seq. and 3201 et seq. to obtain both pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies against delinquent debtors. Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. 3201(a) and (e), a judgment against such a debtor creates a lien on all real property of the debtor, and renders that debtor ineligible for any grant or loan insured, financed, guaranteed, or made by the United States Government.
This system of records is maintained by the Department to cover records used by Department components or offices and/or contract private counsel to perform legal, financial, and administrative services associated with the collection of debts due the United States, including related negotiation, settlement, litigation, and enforcement efforts in accordance with the Debt Collection Act and related authority.
(a) Information from this system may be disclosed to any federal, state, local, territorial, foreign, or tribal agency, or to an individual or organization, if there is reason to believe that such agency, individual, or organization possesses information relating to the verification or collection of debts owed the United States Government, and if the disclosure seeks to elicit information from such entities: (a) Regarding the status of such debts, including settlement, litigation, or other collection efforts; (b) regarding the identification or location of such debtors; (c) regarding the debtor's ability to pay; or (d) relating to the civil action, trial, or hearing, and the disclosure is reasonably necessary to elicit such information or to obtain the cooperation of an agency, individual, or organization.
(b) Information may be disclosed to federal agencies pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act and related authority for any purpose related to debt collection, including locating debtors for debt collection efforts and/or effecting remedies against monies payable to such debtors by the Federal Government. In accordance with computer matching or data sharing programs, information may be disclosed to federal agencies, including the Department of Treasury, Treasury Offset Program, to effect tax refund, salary, and/or administrative offset against federal payments to collect a delinquent debt owed the United States; to the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Taxpayer Address
(c) Information from this system may be disclosed to client agencies who have referred outstanding debts to the DOJ for debt collection efforts including settlement or litigation, to notify such agencies of case developments, the status of accounts receivable or payable, case-related decisions or determinations, or to make such other inquiries and reports related to debt collection efforts.
(d) Information from this system may be disclosed to any federal agency that employs and/or pays pension, annuity, and/or other benefits to an individual who has been identified as a delinquent debtor for purposes of offsetting the individual's salary and/or pension, annuity, or other benefit payment received from that agency, when DOJ is responsible for the enforced collection of a judgment or claim against that person.
(e) Information from this system may be disclosed to any individual or organization requiring such information for the purpose of performing audit, oversight, and training operations of DOJ and to meet related reporting requirements.
(f) In accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to implement the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, information from this system may be disclosed to publish or otherwise publicly disseminate the identity of debtors and/or the existence of non-tax debts, in order to direct actions under the law toward delinquent debtors that have assets or income sufficient to pay their delinquent non-tax debts. However, such action may only be taken after reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the identity of a debtor, such debtor has had an opportunity to verify, contest, and pay (in whole or in part) a non-tax debt, and a review has been conducted by the Secretary of the Treasury or designee.
(g) Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
(h) Information from this system may be disclosed in an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Department of Justice determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(i) Information from this system may be disclosed to an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or in informal discovery proceedings.
(j) Information from this system may be disclosed to appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity that requires information relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
(k) Information from this system may be disclosed to federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations which require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license or permit.
(l) Information may be disclosed to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(m) Information may be disclosed to a former employee of the Department for purposes of: responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, or local government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Department regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(n) Information from this system may be disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(o) Information from this system may be disclosed to the news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(p) Information from this system may be disclosed to a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
(q) Information from this system relating to health care fraud may be disclosed to private health plans, or associations of private health plans, and health insurers, or associations of health insurers, for the following purposes: to promote the coordination of efforts to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute health care fraud; to assist efforts by victims of health care fraud to obtain restitution; to enable private health plans to participate in local, regional, and national health care fraud task force activities; and to assist tribunals having jurisdiction over claims against private health plans.
(r) Information from this system may be disclosed to complainants and/or victims, to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
(s) Information from this system may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Department suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or
(t) Information from this system may be disclosed to such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.
Information from this system of records may be disclosed to a credit or consumer reporting agency, as such terms are used in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a-1681u) and the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3701-3720E) when such information is necessary or relevant to federal debt collection efforts, including, but not limited to, obtaining a credit report on a debtor, payor, or other party-in-interest; reporting on debts due the Government; and/or pursuing the collection of such debts through settlement, negotiation, or litigation.
While in the custody of DOJ, certain records in this system are maintained in automated computer information systems and stored in electronic format for use or reproduction in documents or report form at various times. Other records in this system are maintained in paper format and stored in file cabinets, safes, and similar storage containers by the component and/or office enforcing the collection of the debt.
Data in this system of records may be retrieved by debtor names, other personal identifiers, or case numbers, through computerized queries and other keyword searches.
The Debt Collection Enforcement System security protocols meet multiple NIST Security Standards from authentication to certification and accreditation. Records in the Debt Collection Enforcement System are maintained in a secure, password protected electronic system environment that utilizes security hardware and software including: multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based access controls. Additional safeguards may vary by component.
Debt Collection Records maintained by DOJ Components are maintained in accordance with approved records retention schedules. The records (Master File) of the Department-wide debt collection system are maintained for seven years after close of the case. (N1-060-08-02)
For Debt Collection Management Staff/JMD information contact: FOIA/PA Contact, DOJ/Justice Management Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 1111, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
For Antitrust Division information contact: FOIA/PA Unit, DOJ/Antitrust Division, Liberty Square Building, Suite 1000, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20530-0001.
For Civil Division information contact: FOIA/PA Office, DOJ/Civil Division, Room 7304, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530-0001.
For Civil Rights Division information contact: FOIA/PA Branch, DOJ/Civil Rights Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., BICN, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
For Criminal Division information contact: FOIA/PA Unit, DOJ/Criminal Division, Keeney Building, Suite 1127, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
For Environment and Natural Resources Division information contact: FOIA/PA Office, Law and Policy Section, DOJ/ENRD, P.O. Box 4390, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-4390.
For Executive Office for United States Attorneys (United States Attorneys Offices) information contact: FOIA/PA Staff, DOJ/EOUSA, 600 E Street NW., Room 7300, Washington, DC 20530-0001. Contact information for the individual United States Attorneys Offices in the 94 Federal judicial districts nationwide can be located at
For Tax Division information contact: Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Same as Record Access Procedures.
To the extent that information in this system of records is not subject to exemption, it is subject to access and amendment. A determination as to the applicability of an exemption to a specific record shall be made at the time a request for access is received. Requests for access must be in writing and should be addressed to the appropriate System Manager listed above. The envelope and letter should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Request” and comply with 28 CFR 16.41 (Requests for Access to Records). Access requests must contain the requester's full name, current address, date and place of birth, and should include a clear description of the records sought and any other information that would help to locate the record (e.g., name of the case and federal agency to whom the debtor is indebted). Access requests must be signed and dated and either notarized or submitted under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746.
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in the system should clearly and concisely state what information is being contested, the reasons for contesting it, and the proposed amendment to the information. Address such inquiries to the appropriate System Manager listed above. The envelope and letter should clearly be marked “Privacy Act Request” and comply with 28 CFR 16.46 (Request for Amendment or Correction of Records).
Sources of information contained in this system primarily consist of the individuals covered by the system; DOJ and/or agencies to whom the individual is indebted, seeks benefits, or has furnished information; attorneys or other representatives of debtors and/or payors; and Federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or private organizations or individuals who may have information regarding the debt, the debtor's ability to pay, or any other information relevant or necessary to assist in debt collection efforts.
The Privacy Act authorizes an agency to promulgate rules to exempt a system of records (or parts of a system of records) from certain Privacy Act requirements. The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsections (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1), (2), (3) and (4); (e)(1), (2), (3), (4) (G), (H), and (I), (5), and (8); (f); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) for any criminal law enforcement information within the system; in addition, the system is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from subsections (c)(3); (d)(1), (2), (3), and (4); (e)(1), (4)(G), (H), and (I); and (f). Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c), and (e) and have been published in today's
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 14, 2011, applicable to workers of Clow Water Systems Company, including on-site leased workers from Carol Harris Staffing, Coshocton, Ohio. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of iron pipe and utility fittings. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that McWane, Inc. is the parent firm of Clow Water Systems Company. Some workers separated from employment at the Coshocton, Ohio location of Clow Water Systems Company had their wages reported through a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name McWane, Inc.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to include workers of the subject firm whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through McWane, Inc. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased imports of iron pipe and utility fittings.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-80,463 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Clow Water Systems Company, including on-site leased workers from Carol Harris Staffing, including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages are reported through McWane, Inc., Coshocton, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 23, 2010, through December 14, 2013, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 1, 2010, applicable to workers of Johnson Controls, including on-site leased workers from Kelly Services, Sycamore, Illinois. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce seating for automobiles.
The company reports that in the state of Illinois, Johnson Controls and Hoover Universal, Inc. are one and the same companies. Some workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account under the name Hoover Universal, Inc.
Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected as a secondary component supplier of automotive seating for an active TAA certified firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-73,074 is hereby issued as follows:
”All workers of Johnston Controls, d/b/a Hoover Universal, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Kelly services, Sycamore, Illinois, who became totally or partially separated from who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 9, 2008, through June 1, 2012, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Revised Determination on Reconsideration on December 15, 2011, applicable to workers of Affinity Express, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of LiveIT Investment, LTD, a member of Ayala Group of Companies, including on-site leased workers from Creative Group, Columbus, Ohio. The workers' firm supplies print and advertising services. The revised notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information sho