Rural Housing Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Fiscal Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Fiscal Service
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are issuing an airworthiness directive (AD) for all Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes that supersedes an existing AD that is applicable to certain Model M20R and M20TN airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security with repair as necessary for certain Models M20R and M20TN. That AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA and Mooney. This AD retains all of the actions, except the reporting requirement from the previous AD and adds airplane models to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane regarding failure of the tail pitch trim assembly, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 20, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 20, 2012.
We must receive any comments on this AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Mooney Aviation Company, Inc., 165 Al Mooney Road North, Kerrville, Texas 78028; telephone: (830) 896-6000; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370; email:
On February 16, 2012, we issued AD 2012-03-52, amendment 39-16958 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012), for certain Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Models M20R and M20TN airplanes. That AD requires inspecting the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security with repair as necessary. That AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA and Mooney. That AD resulted from a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane regarding failure of the tail pitch trim assembly, which could result in loss of control. We issued that AD to detect incorrect positioning and improper attachment of the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly and to verify security of the attaching Huck Bolt fasteners, which could lead to failure of the tail pitch trim assembly with consequent loss of pitch control.
Since we issued AD 2012-03-52 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012), we received a report from an owner/operator of a Model M20J airplane who had the airplane inspected and found the same unsafe condition. Since the Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, and M20S airplanes have the same type design as the Models M20R and M20TN airplanes, we determined that these airplanes should be added to the applicability of the AD to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed on all airplanes of the type design.
Also, Mooney published new service information that includes the expanded airplane applicability and instructions for installing replacement fasteners, if necessary.
We reviewed Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February 29, 2012; and Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated February 29, 2012. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment, inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security, and installing replacement fasteners, if necessary.
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information
This AD requires inspecting the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment, and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security on all Mooney Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes. If incorrect positioning or improper/loose attachment is found, this AD requires installing replacement parts and fasteners. These are the same actions currently required by AD 2012-03-52 for certain Mooney Models M20R and M20TN airplanes, except the reporting requirement is no longer required.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the tail pitch trim assembly could result in loss of control. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 6,630 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of the parts and Huck Bolt fasteners that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(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 part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective March 20, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2012-03-52, Amendment 39-16958 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012).
This AD applies to Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane regarding failure of the tail pitch trim assembly and the potential for this condition to exist on other airplane models, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the next 10 hours time-in-service March 20, 2012 (after the effective date of this AD), inspect the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment; and also inspect that the Huck Bolt fasteners are properly secured following Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February 29, 2012.
If during the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD you find incorrect positioning or improper attachment of the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly; and/or you find loose or improperly installed Huck Bolt fasteners, before further flight, repair and correct the discrepancies following Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated February 29, 2012.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD if already done before March 20, 2012 (the effective date of this AD) following Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313, dated February 7, 2012.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for repairs required in paragraph (h) of this AD if already done before March 20, 2012 (the effective date of this AD) following Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314, dated February 10, 2012.
Special flight permits are prohibited for this AD.
(1) The Manager, Fort Worth ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370; email:
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51: (i) Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February 29, 2012; and
(ii) Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated February 29, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Mooney Aviation Company, Inc., 165 Al Mooney Road North, Kerrville, Texas 78028; telephone: (830) 896-6000; email:
(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the Eurocopter France (ECF) Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters. This AD was prompted by some reports of deterioration and two reports of failure of Starflex star arm ends. The actions are intended to modify the main rotor frequency adapters to reduce the temperature in the area, to prevent failure of the star arm end, severe vibration, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD is effective on April 24, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 24, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (800) 232-0323, fax (972)
Gary Roach, ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5130, fax (817) 222-5961, email
On May 13, 2011, at 76 FR 27954, the
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD (EAD) No. 2006-0362-E, dated November 30, 2006, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified Eurocopter model helicopters. EASA advises that this EAD is issued following some reports of deterioration and two reports of failure of Starflex star arm ends. EASA states that these deteriorations “generated high-amplitude vibrations in flight, compelling the pilot to carry out a precautionary landing, in each of these cases. The failure of the Starflex star arm end could make it impossible to control the helicopter. These deteriorations are due to the strong effect of temperature on the strength of the bush-to-Starflex star arm end attachment.” As a result, EASA issued its EAD to require modification (MOD 0762C39) of the frequency adapters and the frequency adapter bushes to improve the ventilation in the area on the star arm end on “helicopters operated in hot climatic conditions and/or tropical and damp atmosphere.”
We gave the public an opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for minor editorial and formatting changes. These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
This AD differs from the EASA AD as follows:
• We refer to flight hours as hours time-in-service.
• We refer to a check as an inspection because it is an action performed by maintenance personnel rather than a pilot.
• We omit the phrase “hot climatic conditions and/or in tropical and damp atmosphere” because it is unenforceable.
ECF has issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin, dated November 23, 2006, with four different numbers: No. 62.00.24 is for the civil Model SA-365 N, AS-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3; No. 62.14 is for the civil Model SA-366G1; No. 65.45 is for the Model SA-365C, C1, and C2; and No. 62.00.10 is for the non-FAA type certificated military Model 565 helicopters. The actions described in the EASA AD are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information.
We estimate that this AD will affect about 37 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD:
• $1,020 assuming 12 work-hours per helicopter to modify the frequency adapters and bushes at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, and
• $960 per helicopter for required parts.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $73,260.
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 helicopters 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as deterioration and failure of Starflex star arm ends. These deteriorations generated high-amplitude vibrations in flight requiring precautionary landings. These deteriorations are due to the strong effect of temperature on the strength of the bush-to-Starflex star arm end attachment and require modification of the frequency adapters and the frequency adapter bushes to improve the ventilation in the area on the star arm end. This condition could result in failure of the star arm end, severe vibration, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
This AD becomes effective April 24, 2012.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For a main rotor head frequency adapter, pre MOD 0762C39, within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS), remove the main rotor blades, modify the frequency adapters and bushes, and change the part number of the frequency adapter as shown in Figures 1 through 5 and by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.2., of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 62.00.24 for the Model SA-365N, N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3; No. 62.14 for the Model SA-366G1; and No. 65.45 for the Model SA-365C, C1, and C2 helicopters; all dated November 23, 2006. This modification is MOD 0762C39.
(2) For each main rotor head frequency adapter modified per MOD 0762C39, within 10 hours TIS, unless accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS, inspect to determine whether the safety wire is in place on the trailing edge of the frequency adapter and whether the holes in the frequency adapters and the frequency adapter bushes, as shown in Figure 5 of the EASB for your model helicopter, are blocked.
(i) If the lockwire is missing from the trailing edge of the frequency adapter, before further flight, reposition the bush if it has turned and install more safety wire.
(ii) If a hole is blocked, before further flight, unblock the hole.
(3) Before installing a frequency adapter or bush, modify the frequency adapter or bush and change the part number in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, DOT/FAA Southwest Region, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5130, fax (817) 222-5961, email
(2) For operations conducted under a Part 119 operating certificate or under Part 91, Subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) The Eurocopter EASB contains four different EASB numbers; three (Nos. 62.00.24, 62.14, and 65.45) apply to different civil Eurocopter model helicopters; and one (No. 62.00.10) only applies to non-FAA type-certificated military Model 565 helicopters and is not incorporated by reference. You may review a copy of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency AD No. 2006-0362-E, dated November 30, 2006.
Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code 5311: Main Rotor Head.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 62.00.24 (for the civil Model SA-365 N, AS-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3), Revision 0, dated November 23, 2006
(ii) Eurocopter EASB No. 62.14 (for the civil Model SA-366G1), Revision 0, dated November 23, 2006
(iii) Eurocopter EASB No. 65.45 (for the Model SA-365C, C1, and C2), Revision 0, dated November 23, 2006
These service bulletins were issued together as one document along with Eurocopter EASB No. 62.00.10 (for the non-FAA type certificated military Model 565 helicopters), which is not incorporated by reference.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3710 or at
(4) You may review copies at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037(M), and PW2040 turbofan engines with certain fan blades with a cutback leading edge, installed. This AD was prompted by reports from PW that fan blade leading edge erosion can result in a fan thrust deterioration mode (FTDM) condition, a condition that cannot be detected by the crew, and that reduces the engine's capability of producing required thrust. This AD requires initial and repetitive maintenance to the leading edge of cutback fan blades or applying performance decrements as specified in the Airplane Flight Manual.
This AD is effective April 24, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 24, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565-8770; fax: (860) 565-4503 or Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone: (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax: (206) 766-5680; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7178; fax: (781) 238-7199; 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 comments received on our proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
Three commenters, UPS, Cheshire Engine Center, and Delta Tech Ops, asked us to include Engine Manual, 1A6231, Chapter/Section 72-31-12, Repair-18, and PW Service Bulletin (SB) PW2000 72-513, Revision 4, dated August 20, 1997, as an AMOC to the AD. The commenters stated that Repair-18 is a bench repair that removes erosion damage and restores the leading edge contour on fan blades with cutback leading edges. The commenters stated that Repair-18 results in a restored leading edge similar to Repair-14, which is already included in the proposed rule as an AMOC. The commenters stated that Repair-14 is a patch weld repair used to restore the cutback leading edge.
We agree that Repair-18 and PW SB PW2000 72-513, Revision 4, dated August 20, 1997 are acceptable methods of resolving the fan thrust deterioration. We changed paragraph (f) of the AD to include Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, PW2240, PW2337 Turbofan Engine Manual, Part No. 1A6231, Chapter/Section 72-31-12, Repair-14 and Repair-18, and PW SB PW2000 72-513, Revision 4, dated August 20, 1997, as additional methods with which to comply with this AD.
One commenter, The Boeing Company (Boeing), asked us to add Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) D631N007, Section 1, page 11, Code 0P00 (Operation with Cutback Fan Blades) to the AMOC already published in the NPRM. The commenter stated that the performance adjustments for the PW2000 series engines that are installed on 757-300 airplanes are not in AFM D631N002, Appendix 24. They are in AFM D631N007, Section 1, Code 0P00.
We partially agree. We changed paragraph (f) of this AD to include “Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Document D631N002” and “Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual, Document D631N007” as additional methods with which to comply with this AD. We also changed paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) and (f)(1)(vii) of this AD to clarify that the method of compliance with those paragraphs is to revise the AFM. In addition, we changed paragraph (f)(3) of this AD to provide for removing certain information from the AFM when that information is included in the general revisions of the AFM. We coordinated all changes to the AFM with the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate.
One commenter, Delta Tech Ops, asked us to include PW SB PW2000 72-737 in the Alternative Methods of Compliance section. The commenter stated that PW SB PW2000 72-737 modifies the cutback fan blades affected by the AD to the non-cutback configuration.
We disagree. If the cutback fan blades affected by the AD are modified to return them to the non-cutback configuration, they are no longer affected by this AD. This AD only applies to fan blade, P/Ns 1B6531, 1B6231-001, or 1A9031-001 (fan blade set P/Ns 1B6521, 1B6221-001, and 1A9721-001), with a cutback leading edge. We didn't change the AD.
Two commenters, United Airlines and Delta Tech Ops, asked us to clarify that the AD repair doesn't have to be performed immediately if the blade leading edge has recently been cutback or restored. The commenters made this request to recognize that some blade leading edges have been recently cutback using PW SB PW2000 72-513 or restored using engine manual Repair-14 or Repair-18.
We agree. This AD is to ensure that cutback blades are repaired within 1,000 cycles-in-service after the last leading edge restoration. We changed paragraph (f) to “Within 500 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 1,000 CIS after the last leading edge restoration, whichever occurs later, do one of the following.”
One commenter, United Airlines, asked us to match the compliance time in the AD with PW ASB PW2000 A72-729 to allow an additional 500 CIS for the PW2037 and PW2037(M) engines as compared to the compliance time for the PW2040 engines.
We disagree. The additional 500 CIS allowed for PW2037 and PW2037(M) engines was applicable when the alert service bulletin was first published in June 2008. This AD is to ensure cutback blades are repaired within 1,000 CIS after the last leading edge restoration. We didn't change the AD.
One commenter, United Airlines, asked us to address the consequence of the cutback blade leading edge repair being mistakenly performed on a non-
We disagree. Each operator must ensure that their personnel are properly trained and certificated to perform this maintenance. We didn't change the AD.
During review of the comments we received, we discovered that we had referred to additional methods of compliance in the NPRM as
We also rephrased the unsafe condition statement to clearly indicate the unsafe condition this AD addresses.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
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 480 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 12 work-hours per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. No parts are required. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $489,600 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: “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 April 24, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037(M), and PW2040 turbofan engines with six or more fan blades, part numbers (P/Ns) 1B6531, 1B6231-001, or 1A9031-001 (fan blade set P/Ns 1B6521, 1B6221-001, and 1A9721-001), with a cutback leading edge, installed.
This AD was prompted by reports from PW that fan blade leading edge erosion can result in a fan thrust deterioration mode (FTDM) condition, a condition that cannot be detected by the crew, and that reduces the engine's capability of producing required thrust. We are issuing this AD to correct undetectable fan thrust deterioration on these PW products.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done.
(1) Within 500 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 1,000 CIS after the last leading edge restoration, whichever occurs later, do one of the following. Whichever method you choose, you must implement the method in full.
(i) For engines installed on the airplane, perform the initial restoration using Accomplishment Instructions For Engines Installed on Aircraft, paragraphs 1. through 1.T. of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A72-729, Revision 2, dated October 13, 2010.
(ii) For engines that are not installed on the airplane, perform the initial restoration using Accomplishment Instructions For Engines Not Installed on Aircraft, paragraphs 1. through 1.S. of PW ASB PW2000 A72-729, Revision 2, dated October 13, 2010.
(iii) Perform Repair-14, dated February 1, 2006, from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, PW2240, PW2337 Turbofan Engine Manual, Part No. 1A6231, Chapter/Section 72-31-12.
(iv) Perform Repair-18, dated February 1, 2004, from a Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, PW2240, PW2337 Turbofan Engine Manual, Part No. 1A6231, Chapter/Section 72-31-12.
(v) Perform PW Service Bulletin PW2000 72-513, Revision 4, dated August 20, 1997.
(vi) Revise the Limitations Section of the Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Document D631N002, to include the following limitation. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(vii) Revise the Limitations Section of the Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual, Document D631N007, to include the following limitation. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(2) If you chose one of the methods in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v) of this AD, thereafter, within 1,000 CIS, repeat one of the methods in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(v) of this AD. Whichever method you choose, you must implement the method in full.
(3) If you chose one of the methods in paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) or (f)(1)(vii) of this AD, you have fully complied with the requirements of this AD and no further action is required. When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f)(1)(vi) or (f)(1)(vii) of this AD has been included in the Limitations Section of the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
The certification office specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(1) For paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) and (f)(1)(vii) of this AD: The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Send information to ATTN: Chris R. Parker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6496; fax: 425-917-6590. Information may be emailed to:
(2) For requirements of paragraphs of this AD other than those identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: The Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO), FAA. Send information to ATTN: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7178; fax: (781) 238-7199.
(i) The Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual, Document D631N002, and the Boeing 757 Airplane Flight Manual, Document D631N007 pertain to the subject of this AD. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; phone: (206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax: (206) 766-5680; email:
(ii) For more information about this AD, contact Ian Dargin, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7178; fax: (781) 238-7199; 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
(i) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW2000 A72-729, Revision 2, dated October 13, 2010, approved for IBR April 24, 2012.
(ii) Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW2000 A72-513, Revision 4, dated August 20, 1997, approved for IBR April 24, 2012.
(iii) LPC First Stage Blade Assembly Repair-14, dated February 1, 2006, of the Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, PW2240, PW2337 Turbofan Engine Manual (“PW2000 Series Engine Manual”), Part No. 1A6231, revision 102, dated February 1, 2012, approved for IBR April 24, 2012.
(iv) LPC First Stage Blade Assembly Repair-18, dated February 1, 2004, of the Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, PW2240, PW2337 Turbofan Engine Manual (“PW2000 Series Engine Manual”), Part No. 1A6231, revision 102, dated February 1, 2012, approved for IBR April 24, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: (860) 565-8770; fax: (860) 565-4503.
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, 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.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a design review following a ground fire incident and reports of flammable fluid leaks from the wing leading edge area onto the engine exhaust area. This AD requires modifying the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing. We are issuing this AD to prevent flammable fluid from leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a fire.
This AD is effective April 24, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 24, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested we reassess the necessity for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010; the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011); and the future AD. KLM stated the Model 747-400 world fleet (as reported by Boeing), as well as the KLM fleet, has had no problems with the issue described by the NPRM; and Model 747-400 airplanes have no slat cans or comparable mechanical construction and are therefore not subject to the unsafe condition. KLM also stated that modifying the drain path away from the pylon on the outboard side of the pylon will not result in an improvement, since the wing leading edge is installed at an angle, so the fuel still can flow towards the engine by gravity after it exits the drain hole (during ground time). KLM also stated that the costs, manpower, and additional downtime associated with the actions in the NPRM are too high for KLM, and it is not convinced the actions will contribute to any additional safety.
We infer the commenter wants the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) withdrawn. We disagree. The NPRM
Boeing requested the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011, as an option to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010 (which was referenced in the proposed AD as the appropriate source of service information for the modification). Boeing justified its request by stating that Revision 1 of this service information adds clarification, but has no new requirements.
We agree. Since the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) was issued, Boeing has issued Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011, which clarifies certain information and provides optional materials. We have changed paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011; added paragraph (h) of the AD to give credit for actions already accomplished in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010; and revised subsequent paragraph lettering.
Boeing requested the final rule be changed to allow Boeing authority to approve AMOCs under Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA). Boeing stated it anticipates repairs will be required to panels and ribs, etc., and that when the service information is embodied, it would be beneficial if the Boeing ODA was authorized to approve these repairs.
We agree with the request to delegate structural AMOC approval to the Boeing ODA because using the Boeing ODA is an appropriate process for making those findings. Accordingly, we have added paragraph (i)(3) to this final rule.
We have revised the heading and marking of paragraph (h) of this AD. This change has not changed the intent of the paragraph.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34625, June 14, 2011).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 258 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
(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
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 April 24, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a design review following a ground fire incident and reports of flammable fluid leaks from the wing leading edge area onto the engine exhaust area. We are issuing this AD to prevent flammable fluid from leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the fluid drain path in the leading edge area of the wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.
This paragraph provides credit for modifications of the fluid drain path required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the modification was performed before the effective date of this AD, using Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, dated November 9, 2010.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for structural repairs required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6505; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-57-2332, Revision 1, dated July 25, 2011.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; email:
(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes. This AD requires a general visual inspection for chamfer of the upper edge of each leaf spring, and rework if necessary. This AD also requires installing a new friction brake nut. This AD was prompted by reports that it was possible to inadvertently move the power levers through the flight idle gate into the beta range due to an un-chamfered leaf spring in the friction brake that may contact the power lever latch when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unsafe condition where both engines can inadvertently be operated in beta mode during flight and consequently reduce controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective April 4, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of April 4, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mazdak Hobbi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; fax (516) 794-5531.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-08, dated January 30, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
During maintenance, it was discovered that it was possible to inadvertently move the power levers through the flight idle gate into the beta range. An investigation revealed that an un-chamfered leaf spring in the friction brake may contact the power lever latch when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened. This can result in the lifting of the power lever latch and allow the power levers to pass through the flight idle gate without lifting the triggers.
Further investigation also determined that an un-chamfered spring installation with a pre-Service Bulletin (SB) 8-76-2 (Modification 8/0443) friction brake nut can further increase the possibility of allowing power levers to pass through the flight idle gate without lifting the triggers, when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened.
The above discrepancies, if not corrected, may result in an unsafe condition where both engines can inadvertently be operated in beta mode during flight.
In order to address this potentially unsafe condition, Bombardier has issued:
• Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) A8-76-32 requiring operators to inspect [general visual inspection] the springs and chamfer [rework] the springs as applicable, and
• SB 8-76-02 Rev. A to replace the pre-SB 8-76-2 (Mod 8/0443) original friction brake nut with a new friction brake nut with larger shoulders.
This [TCCA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) is being issued to mandate compliance with Bombardier ASB A8-76-32 and SB 8-76-02 Rev. A requirements on the affected aeroplanes.
Bombardier has issued the following service bulletins:
• Alert Service Bulletin A8-76-32, dated January 27, 2012.
• Service Bulletin 8-76-02, Revision “A,” dated January 25, 2012.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there have been reports that it was possible to inadvertently move the power levers through the flight idle gate into the beta range due to an un-chamfered leaf spring in the friction brake that may contact the power lever latch when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened. This can result in the lifting of the power lever latch and allow the power levers to pass through the flight idle gate without lifting the triggers. Also, a certain un-chamfered spring installation with a friction brake nut can further increase the possibility of allowing power levers to pass through the flight idle gate without lifting the triggers, when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened. These conditions, if not corrected, may result in an unsafe condition where both engines can inadvertently be operated in beta mode during flight and consequently reduce controllability of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 003 through 039 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 76: Engine Controls.
This AD was prompted by reports that it was possible to inadvertently move the power levers through the flight idle gate into the beta range due to an un-chamfered leaf spring in the friction brake that may contact the power lever latch when the friction adjusting knob is fully loosened. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct an unsafe condition where both engines can inadvertently be operated in beta mode during flight and consequently reduce controllability 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 50 flight hours or 10 days, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a general visual inspection of the upper edge of each leaf spring for chamfer, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A8-76-32, dated January 27, 2012. Do all applicable rework before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A8-76-32, dated January 27, 2012.
(2) Install a new friction brake nut, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-02, Revision `A,' dated January 25, 2012.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-08, dated January 30, 2012; Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A8-76-32, dated January 27, 2012; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-02, Revision `A,' dated January 25, 2012; for related information.
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A8-76-32, dated January 27, 2012.
(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-02, Revision “A,” dated January 25, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of the number 2 windows to
This AD becomes effective April 24, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 24, 2012.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Emerson Hevia, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received on the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008).
Continental Airlines (CAL) concurred with the proposed inspection and follow-on corrective action. The Air Line Pilots Association, International and UPS agreed with the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008).
CAL stated that note (f) of Figures 10 and 24 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008, needs to reference the Boeing 767-400 SRM.
We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008, as the appropriate source of service information in the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008). We agree that note (f) of Figures 10 and 24 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, should identify the Boeing 767-400 SRM. However, since we issued the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008), Boeing has issued Revision 2, dated June 18, 2009, of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010 to clarify airplane/window assembly configurations that do not require on-going link arm inspections, and correct and/or clarify part numbers, part identifications, and other data given in the service bulletin figures. The Boeing 767-400 SRM is identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. We have also revised this AD to add new paragraph (h) of this AD to give credit to operators for actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2009; and have re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
CAL requested that, for any subsequent inspection of the number 2 window link arm after the initial inspection (and modification), we designate Boeing 767 AMM Task 56-11-02-825-122 within Boeing 767 AMM 56-11-02/501 as an AMOC to the repeat inspection requirement of the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008). CAL stated that the over-center position inspection of the link arm specified in the AMM task is part of a comprehensive inspection/check. This task is utilized by the maintenance personnel any time the number 2 window is replaced or adjusted.
We partially agree. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, addresses CAL's AMM suggestion. However, Revision 3 has no repetitive inspection. The inspection is done one time only, to inspect newly unmodified assemblies, as specified in new paragraph (i) of this AD. No further change to the AD is necessary in this regard.
Boeing stated that subsequent to modification done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, the installation of window assembly part numbers that have been installed in production on airplanes after line number 929 should be considered terminating action.
From this statement, we infer that Boeing requested that airplanes having line numbers 930 and subsequent be excluded from the applicability of the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008). We agree that airplanes having line numbers 930 and subsequent are not affected by this AD for the reason stated by Boeing. These airplanes are not listed in the Effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. As stated previously, we have revised the applicability to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011.
Boeing and American Airlines (AAL) stated that modifications done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008, should be considered a terminating action. Boeing added that installing a window having a part number listed in paragraph 2.C.3. of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, should be considered a terminating action.
We infer that the commenters requested that we revise paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008) to clarify that doing the modification terminates the one-time inspection. We agree that clarification is needed. We have determined that either doing the modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, or replacing the window assembly with an assembly that has the new part number specified in paragraph 2.C.3. of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, terminates the inspection requirement of this AD. We have added new paragraph (i) to this AD to clarify the terminating action.
AAL requested clarification regarding window removal to accomplish the modification. AAL stated that window removal can be done at the operator's discretion. We agree that clarification is needed. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, does not state that window removal is necessary nor does it limit the operator from removing the window during modification. Step 14 in Parts 4 and 8 has been removed from Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, to eliminate implication of window removal. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.
CAL stated that the compliance time has already started with the release of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008. Therefore, CAL proposed that the compliance time start with the effective date of the AD.
From these statements, we infer that the commenter requested that we revise paragraph (f) of the supplemental NPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008) to clarify the proposed compliance time. We agree that clarification is necessary in this regard. We have added new paragraph (j) to this AD to specify this exception to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. We have also revised paragraph (g) of this AD to refer to paragraph (j) of this AD, and reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
UPS requested that the Boeing 767 AMM be revised to reflect the requirement for inspection and applicable corrective action. UPS asserted that neither Section 56-11-02-04, “Removal/Installation,” nor Section 56-11-02-06, “Adjustment/Test,” contains any direction for the operator to perform the prescribed inspection of the link arms to ensure that they are in the over-center position. UPS stated that failure to update these sections would result in an incomplete set of instructions for the continued airworthiness of the airplane. We acknowledge the commenter's request. The 767 AMM is only listed as a reference in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. However, the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, which contains illustrations that show the over-center position. Therefore, accomplishing the instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, addresses the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed the AD in this regard.
AAL requested clarification of the definition of a general visual inspection. AAL stated that the definition of a general visual inspection listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, differs from the definition in the Boeing 767 Maintenance Review Board Report.
We agree to clarify the definition of a general visual inspection. The definition of a general visual inspection is correctly stated as the MSG-3 (maintenance steering group) definition in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. No change has been made to the AD in this regard.
We have included the on-condition costs in the Cost of Compliance section of this AD.
We have added paragraph (d) to this AD to include the Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code, and re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
We have deleted the phrase “before further flight following any rigging change or replacement of any number 2 window assembly,” from paragraph (g) (formerly paragraph (f)) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, does not specify doing an inspection after doing the rigging change or replacing any number 2 window assembly. We have determined that this action is not necessary to address the identified unsafe condition except for airplanes on which modified windows were replaced with unmodified windows, as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM (73 FR 70608, November 21, 2008).
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 384 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary modifications that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this modification:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this 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.
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
This AD becomes effective April 24, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56, Windows.
This AD results from reports of the number 2 windows in the flight compartment opening during takeoff roll, which has resulted in aborted takeoffs. We are issuing this AD to prevent the opening of the number 2 windows during takeoff roll, which could adversely affect the flightcrew's ability to perform critical takeoff communication and result in an aborted takeoff or an unscheduled landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Do a general visual inspection of the number 2 windows to determine whether the link arms are in the over-center position, and do all applicable modifications, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, do the actions at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011. Do all applicable modifications before further flight.
This paragraph provides credit for inspections and applicable modifications, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were done before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 2, dated June 18, 2009.
Doing the modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, or replacing the assembly with a modified assembly identified in paragraph 2.C.3. of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, terminates the inspection requirement for that particular assembly. For airplanes that replace the assembly with an unmodified assembly, do the actions required in paragraph (g) of this AD.
Where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of the service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified time after the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Emerson Hevia, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6414; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the following service information.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-56A0010, Revision 3, dated March 3, 2011.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-1A10, CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of cracked or broken support bracket assemblies of the emergency water dump pulley. This AD requires inspecting the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley to determine if certain rivets are installed; replacing rivets and installing new stiffeners on the bracket assembly, if necessary; inspecting the stiffeners for the bracket assembly for cracks, deformation, or corrosion, and replacement if necessary; and re-installing the bracket assembly with radius packers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the support bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley, and in combination with other system failures, such as an engine failure during take off or a pitch control system jam, may result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective April 24, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 24, 2012.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Andreas Rambalakos, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7345; fax (516) 794-5531.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
The emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly, Part Number (P/N) 215-94711-2, has been found cracked or broken on a number of aeroplanes. Failure of the emergency water dump pulley support bracket assembly in combination with other system failures such as an engine failure during take off or pitch control system jam, may result in a loss of control of the aeroplane.
Revision 2 of this [Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)] AD is issued to ensure that terminating action for this [TCCA] AD is carried out prior to the 2011 fire season.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.
Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that it does not find that a reduction in operational safety exists for utility-category flight operations where the water tanks
Aero-Flite, Inc. recommended that all flight limitations contained in the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) be changed to consider that water or fire retardant must be in the tanks for the unsafe condition to exist. Therefore, Aero-Flite, Inc. suggested that all occurrences of “before further flight” (specified in paragraphs (i) and (j) of the NPRM) be changed to “before further approved restricted category operations with water or fire retardant in the tanks including scooping operations.”
We do not agree. Per the type certificate data sheet for Model CL-215-1A10, CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes, these airplanes are certificated in the restricted category only and therefore no reference can be made to utility-category operations. In addition, because of the safety implications and consequences associated with cracking, our policy requires repair of known cracks, deformation, and signs of corrosion, before further flight. This policy is based on the fact that such damaged airplanes do not conform to the FAA-certificated type design and, therefore, are not airworthy until a properly approved repair is made. While we recognize that repair deferrals might be necessary in certain cases of unusual need, routinely deferring repairs could reduce the safety of the type certificated design if such repair deferrals are practiced routinely. We have not changed the AD regarding this issue.
Aero-Flite, Inc. requested that we change the compliance time in paragraph (j) of the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) to “Within 100 flight cycles or 120 days after the effective date of this AD or as of November 1, 2011, whichever occurs later.” Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that it finds that the compliance time specified in paragraph (j) of this NPRM may provide an unnecessary burden for the operator, resulting in airplanes becoming unavailable, and risking substantial loss of property and life from wild fires without providing a meaningful improvement in airplane operational safety.
We disagree with extending the compliance time for the liquid penetrant inspection and re-installing the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley. In developing an appropriate compliance time for the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the specified actions. We have determined that the proposed compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of safety and allow the actions to be done during scheduled maintenance intervals for most affected operators. In addition, investigations by Bombardier have revealed that the cracked support bracket assemblies did not pass limit and ultimate load conditions. Because this is a strength issue, Bombardier recommends replacement of affected parts followed by installation of radius packers to strengthen the support bracket assembly, which would terminate the need for repetitive inspections. Affected operators, however, may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (1)(1) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aero-Flite, Inc. requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) to add an optional visual inspection for the exposed areas of the stiffeners, paying special attention to the identified critical locations (removing the bolt from the critical bolt hole and inspect the hole).
Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that accomplishing the repetitive inspections in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010, requires removal of the bracket assembly from the airplane. Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that it finds that the repetitive visual inspections of the critical locations on the stiffeners can be accomplished without removing the bracket assembly and without substantial systems disassembly by removing the fastener common to the triangular flange. Aero-Flite, Inc. also stated that mandating removal of the bracket assembly to conduct visual inspections creates a burden on the operator, which may affect fire fighting mission availability, and increase the cost of compliance without providing a meaningful improvement in safety.
We disagree with the request to use an optional visual inspection. Bombardier has only validated the required inspections in Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010. We have not received sufficient technical information from Bombardier validating that a visual inspection without removing the bracket assembly would identify the unsafe condition. Affected operators, however, may request an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aero-Flite, Inc. recommends that we revise paragraph (j)(1) of the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) to include an optional surface eddy current inspection for detecting cracks, corrosion, and deformation of the stiffeners.
Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that the liquid penetrant inspection specified in the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) seems to eliminate an equivalent inspection, such as a surface eddy current inspection for detecting cracks, and a visual inspection for corrosion and deformation. Aero-Flite, Inc. also stated that general surface eddy current inspection procedures are published in the Bombardier CL-215 nondestructive testing manual, and that the procedures can be used to detect cracks in the stiffeners with an accuracy that is at least equivalent to liquid penetrant inspection procedure. Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that using a visual inspection for signs of corrosion allows the inspector to look for loose paint, discoloration of the surface, or variations in surface roughness, and that a visual inspection provides detection that is equivalent to
We disagree with the request to use an optional surface eddy current inspection. Bombardier has only validated the required inspections in Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010. We have not received sufficient technical information from Bombardier validating that an inspection other than visual would identify the unsafe condition. Affected operators, however, may request an optional inspection under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aero-Flite, Inc. requested that we revise paragraph (j)(2) of the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) to allow operators to install owner/operator fabricated replacement parts.
Aero-Flite, Inc. stated that the requirement for replacing defective stiffeners with new stiffeners, and using original equipment manufacturer radius packers appears to eliminate the possibility of using engineering dispositions for serviceable stiffeners or fabricated radius packers. Aero-Flite, Inc. also stated that it finds that installing locally fabricated stiffeners and radius packers will not reduce the level of safety achieved, and that requiring the operator to install only new parts and radius packers purchased from the OEM may create a burden on the operator that may affect fire fighting mission availability and increase the cost of compliance without providing an improvement in safety.
We disagree with the request to use locally or operator fabricated parts. The requested list of non-OEM substitute parts and materials is extensive and uncontrolled—and, in many cases, not FAA-approved. An operator may request approval of an AMOC in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.
We have revised the heading for and the wording in paragraph (k) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent of that paragraph.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed—except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 34014, June 10, 2011).
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
Although Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011, has a compliance time of “No later than 01 June 2011,” for Part II—Terminating Action, this AD has a compliance time for a terminating action of “Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” We have coordinated this difference with Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA).
Although Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011, has an initial compliance time of “within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD” for identifying the type of rivet installed, this AD has a compliance time of “within 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” In addition, the follow-on inspections in paragraph (i) of this AD for airplanes on which flush rivets are determined to be installed, is “within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.” We have coordinated this difference with TCCA.
We estimate that this AD will affect 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 40 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $3,400 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 24, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 1051 through 1125 inclusive; Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes, serial numbers 1056 through 1125 inclusive; and Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes; serial numbers 2001 through 2085 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked or broken support bracket assemblies of the emergency water dump pulley. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the support bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley, and in combination with other system failures, such as an engine failure during take off or a pitch control system jam, may result in loss of controllability 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 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection to determine if either universal solid (round head) rivets or flush rivets of the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley are installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, universal solid rivets are determined to be installed: Within 50 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the solid rivets with flush rivets, and install new stiffeners on the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, flush rivets are determined to be installed; and for airplanes on which flush rivets are installed in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the stiffeners for cracks, deformation, and signs of corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles, repeat the detailed inspections of the stiffeners. If any crack, deformation, or signs of corrosion are found, before further flight, replace the stiffeners with new stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
Within 100 flight cycles or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Installation of the radius packers terminates the repetitive detailed inspections of the support bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) Do a liquid penetrant inspection of the stiffeners having P/N 215-94711-6 and P/N 215-94711-8 for cracks, deformation, or signs of corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). If any crack, deformation, or sign of corrosion is found, before further flight, replace damaged stiffeners with new stiffeners, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
(2) Re-install the bracket assembly of the emergency water dump pulley using radius packers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010 (for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.
(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4424, dated January 25, 2010.
(2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2010.
(3) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, dated May 19, 2010.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-38R2, dated March 17, 2011, and the service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD; for related information.
(1) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010.
(2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010.
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A543, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2010.
(ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4424, Revision 2, dated June 23, 2010.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections for fuel leakage and cracks on the wing spar II, close to the rib 10 area, and repair if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of fuel seepage at the left-hand wing, close to the rib 10 area in two airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the wing spar II, which could result in a fuel leak, consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and possible fire.
This AD becomes effective April 4, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 4, 2012.
We must receive comments on this AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cindy Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2768; fax 425-227-1149.
The Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC), which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2012-02-01, dated February 22, 2012 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
It has been found cases of fuel seepage at the Left Hand (LH) wing and close to the Rib 10 area in two different airplanes. Further investigation revealed that the seepage was caused by a crack at the LH wing spar II close to the Rib 10. The ANAC is issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the wing spar II, which could result in a fuel leak and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
This AD requires repetitive general visual inspections for fuel leakage on the wing spar II, close to the rib 10 area; repetitive detailed inspections for cracks on the wing spar II, spar cap third, and main box lower skins of the wings, close to the rib 10 area; an eddy current inspection for cracks on the wing spar II if necessary; and repair if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
EMBRAER has issued Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD is considered interim action to address the unsafe condition. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.
The MCAI requires actions only for airplanes that have exceeded 12,000 total flight cycles, but the requirements of this (FAA) AD apply to all Model 170 airplanes.
For airplanes with fuel leakage but no crack, this AD, in paragraph (j)(2), requires repeating the general visual and detailed inspections. The MCAI does not require that this inspection be repeated under those conditions.
We have coordinated these differences with ANAC.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of fuel leaks caused by spar cracks, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing, and possible fire. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to all Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model ERJ 170-100 LR, -100 STD, -100 SE., and -100 SU airplanes; and Model ERJ 170-200 LR, -200 SU, and -200 STD airplanes; certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel seepage at the left-hand wing, close to the rib 10 area in two airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the wing spar II, which could result in a fuel leak, consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and possible fire.
You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a general visual inspection for fuel leakage on the wings, close to the rib 10 area, while both tanks are fully fueled, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012.
Guidance on performing the inspection for fuel leakage can be found in Task 28-11-00-790-801-A, Wing Tank—Fueled Tank Leakage Check, of the EMBRAER 170/175 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 11,999 or fewer total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or within 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 11,999 total flight cycles but fewer than 13,926 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 13,925 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect before the accumulation of 14,075 total flight cycles, or within 75 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
If any sign of fuel leakage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do a detailed inspection for cracks on spar II, spar cap third, and main box lower skin of the wings, close to the rib 10, in accordance with Part II or Part III, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight
If no sign of fuel leakage is found during the most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, within 450 flight cycles after accomplishing the inspection, repeat the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD and do a detailed inspection for cracks on spar II, spar cap third, and main box lower skin of the wings, close to the rib 10, in accordance with Part II and Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012. Repeat both inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 450 flight cycles.
If any fuel leakage is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD: Within 150 flight cycles after the most recent inspection, do an eddy current special detailed inspection for cracks on spar II of the wings, and a defueled tank leak check for fuel leakage, in accordance with Part IV and Part V, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012.
(1) If any crack is found: Do the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
(2) If no crack is found: Repeat the general visual inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD and the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 450 flight cycles.
If any cracking or fuel leakage is found during any inspection or check required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Agência Nacional de Aviação Civil (ANAC) (or its delegated agent). Repair of any crack terminates the repetitive inspection requirements required by this AD for that side of the wing.
Guidance on the classification of “fuel leakage” and the disposition of fuel leaks can be found in Task 28-11-00-790-801-A, Wing Tank—Fueled Tank Leakage Check, of the EMBRAER 170/175 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.
Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2012-02-01, dated February 22, 2012; and EMBRAER Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012; for related information.
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(i) Embraer Alert Service Bulletin 170-57-A053, dated February 13, 2012.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-12227-901 São Jose dos Campos—SP—BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
(3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at an NARA facility, call 202-741-6030, or go to
Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.
Guidance.
On February 21, 2012, the Department of Labor (the Department or DOL) published a Final Rule amending H-2B regulations governing the certification of temporary employment of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal non-agricultural employment. The Department's H-2B Final Rule also created new regulations to provide for enhanced enforcement under the H-2B program requirements when employers fail to meet their obligations under the H-2B program. The Department also made changes to the
The H-2B Final Rule becomes effective on April 23, 2012. All applications filed on or after that date will need to comply with all applicable program requirements. The purpose of this guidance is to provide transition procedures to ensure that employers filing H-2B applications on or after April 23, 2012, have sufficient information to file appropriately.
This guidance is effective March 20, 2012.
William L. Carlson, Ph.D., Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room C-4312, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: (202) 693-3010 (this is not a toll-free number).
On February 21, 2012, the Department published a Final Rule amending the H-2B regulations at 20 CFR part 655, Subpart A. 76 FR 10038, Feb. 21, 2012. The rule becomes effective April 23, 2012 and applies to all applications filed on or after that date. Among other things, the H-2B Final Rule provides for a return to the compliance-based certification model, by which employers file before conducting recruitment. The
Applications filed under Labor Certification Process and Enforcement for Temporary Employment in Occupations Other Than Agriculture or Registered Nursing in the United States (H-2B Workers), and Other Technical Changes, 73 FR 78020, Dec. 19, 2008 (the current regulation), must be sent to the Office of Foreign Labor Certification's (OFLC's) Chicago National Processing Center (CNPC) and postmarked no later than midnight April 22, 2012, the last day before the effective date of the H-2B Final Rule. An application filed up to the effective date of the H-2B Final Rule must still comply in full with the requirements of the current regulations. Applications postmarked on or after April 23, 2012 will be adjudicated in accordance with the requirements described in the H-2B Final Rule.
Any application filed under the current regulation that is postmarked on or after April 23, 2012 or later will be rejected, and the employer (and its agent or attorney) will be informed of the need to file a new application in accordance with the provisions of the new H-2B Final Rule.
To ensure a smooth transition from the current regulation and allow the OFLC to make the necessary changes to its program operations to accommodate the new planned registration process, the Department noted in the H-2B Final Rule, at 20 CFR 655.11(j), that it would announce in the
Employers with questions are encouraged to submit such questions to H-2B.Regulation@dol.gov. The Department will provide responses in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on its Web site.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the packaging and labeling control provisions of the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for human and veterinary drug products by limiting the application of special control procedures for the use of cut labeling to immediate container labels, individual unit cartons, or multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons. FDA is also permitting the use of any automated technique, including differentiation by labeling size and shape, that physically prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging equipment when cut labeling is used. This action is intended to protect consumers from labeling errors more likely to cause adverse health consequences, while eliminating the regulatory burden of applying the rule to labeling unlikely to reach or adversely affect consumers. This action is also intended to permit manufacturers to use a broader range of error prevention and labeling control techniques than permitted by current CGMPs.
This final rule is effective on March 20, 2013, except for the amendment adding § 211.122(g)(4), which is effective April 19, 2012.
Brian Hasselbalch, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 4364, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3279, email:
In the
Persistent problems with drug product mislabeling and subsequent recalls led FDA in 1987 and in 1990 to review labeling procedures and product recalls. The review identified gang-printed and cut labeling as a leading cause of labeling mixups. Gang-printed labeling is defined in § 210.3(b)(22) (21 CFR 210.3(b)(22)) as labeling derived from a sheet of material on which more than one item of labeling is printed. Each sheet includes labeling for a variety of products and, because of this, labeling for individual drug products must be separated from the labeling for other products. When labels are gang-printed, the labels for different drug products or different strengths for the same drug product are processed together, making them especially susceptible to mixups. Similarly, cut labeling is commonly placed in separate stacks before being transported to packaging and labeling lines for application to appropriate products. FDA found that stacks of labeling of similar size, shape, and color could easily be intermixed and, if the printer or manufacturer did not detect the error, incorrect labeling could be applied and a mislabeled drug product distributed. To reduce the frequency and likelihood of such mislabeling, FDA, in the
To further limit the potential for mislabeling, FDA also required written procedures for the identification and handling of filled drug product containers not immediately labeled (§ 211.130(b)). FDA also amended § 211.125(c) to exempt manufacturers that use automated 100 percent examination for correct labeling from the label reconciliation requirements. FDA also defined gang-printed labeling at § 210.3(b)(22). The final rule applied to all types of labeling, including product inserts, multiunit containers packaged in individual containers, and shipping containers.
In May 1994, FDA received two citizen petitions from several trade associations requesting, among other things, that FDA consider additional comments on the application of § 211.122(g) to items of labeling other than the immediate container label, and requesting additional time to obtain, install, or validate equipment necessary to comply with the August 3, 1993 final rule. In response to these requests, FDA extended the compliance date to August 3, 1995, for § 211.122(g) as it applies to labeling other than immediate container labels, and opened the administrative record for comments on the scope of § 211.122(g). All other provisions of the August 3, 1993, final rule became effective on August 3, 1994. To adequately assess comments received during the extended comment period and provide industry additional time to comply with the regulation, FDA published several notices extending the compliance date for § 211.122(g), as it applies to labeling other than immediate container labels, to August 2, 1996, to August 1, 1997, and, in the July 29, 1997,
FDA evaluated the comments received during the extended comment period, met with industry representatives, reviewed recall data to determine the danger to consumers from errors in different types of drug product labeling, and surveyed packaging and labeling control technology. On July 29, 1997, FDA issued a proposed rule to narrow the scope of § 211.122(g) and to expand the permissible control procedures. This rule finalizes the July 29, 1997, proposed rule. As described in more detail in section II of this document, the final rule adopts the proposed codified without change.
The first sentence of current states: “If cut labeling is used, packaging and labeling operations shall include one of the following special control procedures.” The final rule amends the first sentence of § 211.122(g) to state: “If cut labeling is used for immediate container labels, individual unit cartons, or multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons, packaging and labeling operations shall include one of the following special control procedures.” Thus, instead of applying to all types of labeling as required in the August 3, 1993, final rule, the control procedures specified in revised § 211.122(g) apply only to cut labeling used for immediate container labels, individual unit cartons, or multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons. This amendment is intended to protect consumers from labeling errors that are more likely to cause adverse health consequences, while eliminating the regulatory burden of applying the rule to labeling unlikely to reach or adversely affect consumers. As explained in the proposed rule, the immediate container label is most likely to be read by consumers. The individual unit carton labeling is the outermost container in which a drug product is commonly marketed at retail, and many consumers read this labeling when deciding whether to purchase a product. When using multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons (for example, sterile dosage forms in tray packs in which immediate containers lack unit cartons), consumers and health professionals are more likely to rely on labeling on the outer multiunit container than to examine the labeling on the individual drug product immediate containers.
Currently, there are three control procedures delineated in § 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(3): (1) Dedication of labeling and packaging lines to each different strength of each different drug product; (2) use of appropriate electronic or electromechanical equipment to conduct a 100 percent examination for correct labeling during or after completion of finishing operations; or (3) use of visual inspection to conduct a 100 percent examination for correct labeling during or after completion of finishing operations for hand-applied labeling. The visual inspection must be performed by one person and independently verified by a second person. The final rule amends § 211.122(g) to add a fourth alternative special control procedure for packaging and labeling operations when cut labeling is used that provides for more flexibility in determining adequate controls. The fourth control, added at § 211.122(g)(4), states: “Use of any automated technique, including differentiation by labeling size and shape, that physically prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging equipment.” As noted in the proposed rule (62 FR 40489 at 40491), this additional control procedure is being added because FDA believes that this will provide manufacturers with the widest possible latitude in selecting appropriate labeling control technologies. It will permit the use of a number of automated techniques that will physically prevent incorrect labeling from being processed by packaging and labeling equipment. A labeling control method using size and shape as part of an automated technique that prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging lines provides equivalent labeling control protection, through prevention, as do the other special control procedures through surveillance or dedication of labeling and packaging lines. An acceptable automated technique will allow labeling and packaging operations to operate only if correct labeling unique to a given product (for example, a specific size) is used.
FDA received three comments on the proposed rule which raised a limited number of issues. The specific issues raised by the commenters are described in this section III.
The comment also said that industry's experiences with certain electronic and electromechanical control systems have shown inconsistent results, and 50-60 percent of the electronic systems that were installed during the recent past (the comment was submitted in 1997) could not be used because of lack of reliability against the zero-defect standard. The comment said that some automated systems are not robust enough to identify “bad” labels 100 percent of the time, at certain line speeds and under certain conditions, and the systems erred with unacceptable levels of false positives (that is, flagging “good” labels as “bad”).
The comment said the special control procedures under proposed § 211.122(g) should be modified to allow companies to document a system of control that best fits the unique abilities of each particular company, without requiring any one particular control system (for example, electronic or electromechanical controls) to be used across the entire industry. The comment said this approach would allow the implementation of technology appropriate for the individual plants involved.
The comment noted that many companies currently use multiple layers of control in their labeling operations that have yielded very robust systems of total control, and they should not be required to add another special layer of control that may not improve their total system. The comment stated that FDA should permit additional automated and nonautomated methods of control for items of labeling within the scope of § 211.122(g). Differentiation by size, shape, or color or by any other effective, validated means should be permitted, whether automated or not. The comment described other types of layers of control that should be permitted, including labeling design to minimize mixups, using labeling suppliers that have excellent internal control, using label control rooms, proper purging of labeling lines, using computerized material requirements planning systems, online checks of operations, and reconciliation of labeling.
Another comment said that the proposed rule would limit industry's choice of control measures, and too great an emphasis was placed on “high tech” electronic verification systems. The comment stated that traditional methods of label control have proven to be just as effective. The comment said that industry is largely operating using traditional label control measures along with some high tech electronic verification systems as part of an overall system of label control. These traditional systems consist of multilevel control measures that work together to ensure that label mixups are avoided. The comment said that the use of electronic systems alone will not provide this level of assurance, because electronic systems are not 100 percent effective and often give false alarms in labeling operations that can lead to operator complacency and/or inefficient line operation. The comment expressed doubt that the use of electronic verification systems would improve systems currently in place at its company. The comment recommended other control measures as part of an overall system for label control that should be considered by FDA, including: (1) An ongoing program to assess the label supplier's operations and controls; (2) labeling designed to avoid mixups such as differentiation by size, shape, and color; (3) procedures addressing art/label approval; (4) a multilevel control system that incorporates personnel training, label inspection, line clearance, and other control procedures designed to avoid mixups; and (5) a validation of such systems that gives assurance that label controls are acceptable.
When cut labeling is used for the identified types of labeling, at least one of the special controls in § 211.122(g) must be used. The final rule permits the choice of a special control from one of four options specified in § 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(4). Two are nonautomated controls: dedication of lines (paragraph (g)(1)) and visual inspection for hand applied labels (paragraph (g)(3)). Two are automated controls: Electronic or electromechanical examination to conduct a 100-percent examination for correct labeling during or after completion of finishing operations (paragraph (g)(2)), and use of any automated technique that physically prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging equipment (paragraph (g)(4)). This provides industry with a number of options, including manual, electronic, electromechanical, and automated systems. It also permits broad discretion to industry to select appropriate electronic or automated systems for this purpose, and to “layer” different controls, if desired, as long as at least one of the options listed in paragraph (g) is used as one of the layers.
However, FDA disagrees that additional nonautomated special controls, in addition to dedicated lines or visual inspection, should be added to paragraph (g). As we noted in the proposed rule (62 FR 40489 at 40491), nonautomated (i.e., manual) differentiation of size and shape as a labeling control does not provide adequate protection from labeling mixups when cut labeling is used. It is the increased opportunity for human error afforded by the process of cutting, sorting, and subsequent handling of different items of labeling that has caused labeling mixups and recalls. One of the goals of this rulemaking is to reduce the likelihood for such human error through the increased use of automated labeling control systems and through the elimination of manual label differentiation by size and shape. In addition, in response to the commenter's concern that electronic systems are not sufficiently reliable, we believe that development and use of advanced code scanning equipment has made many current electronic verification systems accurate and reliable. For example, all prescription drug products (with limited exceptions), biological products, and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drug products are now required by 21 CFR 201.25 to bear on the label a bar code containing, at a minimum, the drug's NDC (National Drug Code). Electronic systems can use these codes to scan the labels as part of
If cut labeling is used, the choice of one of the four special control procedures listed above should allow manufacturers to document a system of control that best fits the unique abilities of each particular manufacturer without requiring any one particular control system to be used. The final rule permits manufacturers considerable latitude under § 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(4) in establishing control procedures over cut labeling, and is sufficiently flexible to permit technological innovation in automated labeling inspection systems. For example, under the final rule, a labeling control method designed by an individual manufacturer could incorporate electronic or electromechanical equipment or the use of a visual inspection to conduct a 100 percent examination for correct labeling. Moreover, manufacturers are free to use one of the specifically enumerated special controls in § 211.122(g) in combination with any other special or general labeling controls. The rule merely establishes that, at a minimum, one of the four enumerated special controls must be used when the identified types of cut labeling are used. Accordingly, many of the alternative special and general controls discussed by the commenters could also be used in conjunction with one of the enumerated special controls.
The comments suggest that this rule will mandate that manufacturers who currently have effective label control systems but are not currently using one of the controls enumerated in § 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(4) must change their system to include one of the four special controls. FDA points out that this would only be true for situations where cut labeling is currently being used for those labels subject to the enforcement discretion period (labels other than immediate container labels) if the manufacturer is not currently voluntarily using one of the enumerated special controls. Processes using cut labeling for immediate containers labels (the bulk of the labels covered by this change) were not subject to enforcement discretion and would already be required to use one of the three special controls in current § 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(3). The only change made by this rule for those labeling processes would be the addition of a new option to meet the requirement of subsection (g). Those lines would not be
The comment said that this paragraph appears to equate cut labeling with gang-printing. The comment noted that gang-printing is prohibited under § 211.122(f): “Use of gang-printed labeling for different drug products, or different strengths or net contents of the same product, is prohibited unless the labeling from gang-printed sheets is adequately differentiated by size, shape, or color.” In addition, gang-printed labeling is defined in § 210.3(b)(22) as “labeling derived from a sheet of material on which more than one item of labeling is printed.” The comment noted that the printing of repetitions of the same item of labeling on the same sheet results in cut labeling, as the individual repetitions of the item are cut from the sheet for use. The comment said that this is not gang-printing and does not present the same opportunity “for human error afforded by the process of cutting, sorting, and subsequent handling of different items of labeling” as does gang-printing, because the labeling is all identical.
The shorter implementation period applicable to cut labeling used for immediate container labels (which make up the majority of cut labeling used) reflects the fact that sections 211.122(g)(1) through (g)(3) as they apply to such labels have been effective since August 3, 1994. As to those labels, this final rule merely adds an additional control option for the appropriate use of cut labeling (i.e., § 211.122(g)(4)). Accordingly, as to those labels, we are making this rule effective 30 days after its publication in the
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule reduces the scope of the 1993 final rule and
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $136 million, using the most current (2010) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
The purpose of this final rule is to protect consumers from those labeling errors that are more likely to cause adverse health consequences, while eliminating the regulatory burden of applying the rule to labeling unlikely to reach or adversely affect consumers. This rule amends the 1993 final rule by limiting the scope to cut labeling for immediate container labels, individual unit cartons, and multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons. This rule also increases flexibility for firms selecting special labeling control procedures by adding a provision for the use of any automated technique, including differentiation by size and shape, that physically prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging equipment. Therefore, this rule is expected to have a positive economic impact on drug manufacturers that would otherwise be subject to the more stringent requirements under current regulations.
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Drugs, Labeling, Laboratories, Packaging and containers, Prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 211 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, 360b, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263a, 264.
(g) If cut labeling is used for immediate container labels, individual unit cartons, or multiunit cartons containing immediate containers that are not packaged in individual unit cartons, packaging and labeling operations shall include one of the following special control procedures:
(4) Use of any automated technique, including differentiation by labeling size and shape, that physically prevents incorrect labeling from being processed by labeling and packaging equipment.
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
By this rule, the Department of Justice is extending the date for compliance with certain requirements in the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards) that relate to provision of accessible entry and exit for swimming pools, wading pools, and spas. This final rule, based on a finding of good cause, changes the date for compliance from March 15, 2012, to May 21, 2012 in order to allow additional time to address misunderstandings regarding compliance with these ADA requirements. Some pool owners and operators believed that taking certain steps would always satisfy their obligations under the ADA when in fact those steps would not necessarily result in compliance with the ADA regulations.
Effective on March 15, 2012, the compliance date for 28 CFR 35.150(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), and 28 CFR 36.304(d)(2)(iii) for sections 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standards is delayed to May 21, 2012.
Allison Nichol, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY). This is not a toll-free number. Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).
This rule is also available in an accessible format on the ADA Home Page at
The Department of Justice published its revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) on September 15, 2010.
With a compliance deadline of March 15, 2012, the 2010 Standards set minimum scoping and technical requirements for accessible entry and exit for new construction and alteration of swimming pools, wading pools, and spas (collectively, “pools”). In addition, the title III regulation provides that as of March 15, 2012, public accommodations' barrier removal efforts must comply with the 2010 Standards to the extent readily achievable, including with respect to barriers to accessing pools. 28 CFR 36.304 (d)(2)(iii). The title II regulation provides that the 2010 Standards apply where public entities choose to meet their title II ADA program access obligations by making structural changes to their pools. 28 CFR 35.150(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii).
The Department of Justice finds that good cause exists for adopting this rule as a final rule with an immediate effective date because proceeding via ordinary Administrative Procedure Act process would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Both the inquiries received by the Department prior to the TA Document's publication and the pool owners and operators' response to the TA Document reveal that there were misunderstandings among a substantial number of pool owners and operators concerning the obligations imposed by the ADA as implemented in the 2010 Final Rule as to their obligations with respect to existing pools and their options with respect to the provision of pool lifts. Some pool owners and operators believed that taking certain steps would always satisfy their obligations when in fact those steps would not necessarily result in compliance with the ADA regulations. Recognizing that pool owners and operators face challenges in correcting their misunderstandings and determining appropriate compliance when faced with what is now an immediate compliance date, the Department determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to retain the existing compliance date, and that a brief 60-day extension of that date is necessary to provide an opportunity for pool owners and operators to assess their obligations under the Final Rule and determine how best to comply. Further, the Department is contemporaneously issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on whether an even longer period of time to allow pool owners and operators to meet their compliance obligations would be appropriate. Accordingly, this 60-day extension of the compliance date is intended to avoid economic effects and disruption of the existing status quo while enabling public comment and meaningful review of those comments on the question of whether a longer extension of the compliance date is warranted. Thus, the government concludes that the requisite good cause for issuance of this final rule exists, and the requirements for notice and comment are not applicable to this brief extension of the compliance date set forth in the 2010 Final Rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Additionally, this rule is effective immediately on date of display for public inspection in the
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation, and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely extends for 60 days the compliance date of the specified provisions of the title II and title III ADA rules to avoid economic effects and disruption of the existing status quo while enabling public comment and meaningful review of those comments on the question of whether a longer extension of the compliance date is warranted.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-
Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
Treasury is changing the procedures for financial institutions to transmit and receive settlement for redeemed definitive (paper) savings securities (savings bonds and savings notes) from the EZ Clear system to an image-based securities process through the Federal Reserve. By changing the procedures, Treasury will reduce costs and provide for a more efficient method of processing savings securities through the Federal Reserve. Treasury is making discretionary the payment of fees to paying agents for the processing of redeemed definitive savings securities. Treasury will have the flexibility to adjust paying agent fees and significantly reduce program costs.
You can download this Final Rule at the following Internet addresses: <
D. Michael Linder, Director, Division of Program Administration, Office of Retail Securities, Bureau of the Public Debt, at (304) 480-6319 or <
Ann Fowler, Attorney-Adviser, Brian Metz, Attorney-Adviser, Dean Adams, Assistant Chief Counsel, Edward Gronseth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public Debt, at (304) 480-8692 or <
United States savings securities are non-marketable Treasury securities. Generally, definitive savings securities are redeemed by banks and other financial institutions that are authorized by Treasury as paying agents to redeem eligible savings securities for cash and process those securities in accordance with Treasury regulations and instructions.
Beginning October 1, 1988, Treasury permitted paying agents to transmit and receive settlement for redeemed definitive savings securities through the EZ CLEAR system, under which the securities are manually sorted and mailed to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank or Branch. Service fees for redeemed definitive savings securities presented through EZ CLEAR are paid to the institution presenting the securities to a Federal Reserve Bank.
Effective April 11, 2012, financial institutions will begin to transition the submission of redeemed definitive savings securities from the EZ CLEAR process to an existing image-based securities process through the Federal Reserve. Use of this existing image-based securities process will enable paying agents to image redeemed definitive savings securities in the same manner as they do for checks and electronically transmit the images to a Federal Reserve Processing Site for payment. The Federal Reserve will provide specific details on the use of the image-based securities process while the Bureau of the Public Debt will provide other detailed instructions to paying agents via its Web site at
Treasury will be using a more streamlined, efficient, and cost-effective method for redeeming and processing definitive savings securities through a Federal Reserve Processing Site to which the paying agent is instructed to transmit images of redeemed definitive savings securities for payment. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis will continue to provide fiscal services as the designated Treasury Retail Securities Site.
The new procedures eliminate exception processing for paying agents and greatly reduce their handling costs. Accordingly, Treasury is making the payment of paying agent fees discretionary, which will allow Treasury the flexibility to adjust paying agent fees and significantly reduce Treasury's program costs. Treasury anticipates that most agents will continue redeeming definitive savings securities as a service to their customers.
Banks and banking, Federal Reserve System, Government Securities.
Banks and banking, Federal Reserve System, Government Securities.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, Treasury amends 31 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter B, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 391; 31 U.S.C. 321; 31 U.S.C. 3105, 3126.
These regulations govern the manner in which financial institutions may qualify and act as paying agents for the redemption of:
(a) Definitive United States Savings Bonds of Series A, B, C, D, E, EE, and I, and United States Savings Notes (Freedom Shares), presented for cash payment; and
(b) Eligible definitive Series E and Series EE savings bonds and savings notes presented for redemption in exchange for Series HH savings bonds under the provisions of Department of the Treasury Circular, Public Debt Series No. 2-80 (31 CFR part 352).
(a) * * *
(3) Are under the supervision of a federal or state regulatory agency or equivalent authority; and
(b) An organization that desires to redeem securities must first qualify as a paying agent. An organization that has qualified and is serving as a paying agent must:
(1) Submit redeemed securities directly to a Federal Reserve Processing Site in accordance with the Federal Reserve Operating Circular; and
(2) Have the ability to receive payment of applicable fees by ACH, or arrange to obtain one or more of these services from another financial institution.
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(2) For the purpose of these regulations, all eligible institutions shall make application to a TRS Site.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(d)
A paying agent shall cancel each redeemed security by imprinting the word “PAID” on its face and entering the amount and date of the actual payment and the agent's name, location, and four-digit code number assigned by a TRS Site or nine-digit ABA code number. The recordation of this data shall constitute a certification by the agent that the security was redeemed in accordance with the provisions of this part, that the presenter's identity and entitlement to request payment were duly established, and that the proceeds were paid to the presenter or remitted to a TRS Site in payment for Series HH savings bonds.
Except for eligible securities redeemed on exchange pursuant to § 321.8, a paying agent shall transmit for payment all redeemed securities to a Federal Reserve Processing Site in accordance with the Federal Reserve Operating Circular.
If an agent discovers an erroneous payment of securities, it should immediately advise the Bureau of the Public Debt, Parkersburg, WV, as further described in the instructions and guidance issued pursuant to § 321.27.
The provisions of this subpart shall apply to securities redeemed by or submitted to any Federal Reserve Processing Site, any TRS Site, or any Treasury office authorized to redeem securities, as well as to paying agents.
Any securities an agent is not authorized to pay under the provisions of this part should be forwarded for redemption to a TRS Site. The requests for payment on the securities should be properly certified. Any documentary evidence required to support the transaction should accompany the securities. If the securities are presented for redemption-exchange, they must also be accompanied by a completed and signed exchange subscription and additional cash needed to complete the transaction. Unpaid securities must be forwarded to a TRS Site in accordance with the rules in this part. The Bureau of the Public Debt provides agents with instructions and guidance regarding forwarding items. These instructions identify the specific types of redemption cases that should be forwarded and the processing instructions that paying agents must follow. These instructions are available from a TRS Site or online at
(a)
(b)
(c)
The definitive security must be presented and surrendered to the paying agent in order to receive payment. An agent is prohibited from accepting an image, or other copy or reproduction of the definitive security, for redemption or processing. To ensure that all transactions processed by agents are properly validated, agents must establish and comply with a retention period for definitive securities that are truncated and converted to an electronic image. At a minimum, the agent must retain such securities for a period of thirty calendar days following the date that the agent submitted the electronic image of the paid security to a Federal Reserve Processing Site. Agents may establish longer retention periods for definitive securities at their discretion.
Federal Reserve Banks (including any Branch or office thereof, as appropriate) perform services as fiscal agents of the United States. These Federal Reserve Banks shall perform such services in connection with this part as may be requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee. These Federal Reserve Banks are authorized and directed to perform such duties, including the issuance of supplemental instructions and forms, as may be necessary to fulfill the purposes and requirements of these regulations. The instructions and guidance issued pursuant to § 321.27 set forth each Federal Reserve Bank that has been designated as a Federal Reserve Processing Site or as a TRS Site by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee.
(a) The Bureau of the Public Debt will provide Federal Reserve Processing Sites, TRS Sites, and paying agents with instructions and guidance on how to process redemption transactions. This information is available online at the Bureau of the Public Debt's Web site at
(b) The Federal Reserve Operating Circular sets forth additional rights and obligations of paying agents with respect to redemption transactions. Additional instructions and guidance are available online at the Federal Reserve Bank Services Web site at
(c) Paying agents are required to process redemptions in accordance with the terms and conditions cited in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee, reserves the right to hold an agent liable whose failure to follow these instructions results in an incorrect amount being paid for a redeemed security.
4.
5.
9. * * *
(a) * * * Securities that an agent may not redeem because of the limitations in § 321.9 should be forwarded to a TRS Site for handling. * * *
13. * * *
(a)
(b)
14. * * *
(a)
(b)
(d)
15.
16.
17.
21.
(a)
(d)
(e)
22.
23.
25.
(a) Example: if the agent paid the presenter of a security on May 7, 2012, and submitted the security's electronic image to a Federal Reserve Processing Site on May 11, 2012, then the retention requirements would obligate the agent to retain the definitive security, at a minimum, until June 10, 2012.
(b) During the specified retention period, agents must store the securities under
(c) At the end of the retention period, agents must destroy the securities in a manner that safeguards customer information. Specifically, securities must be destroyed by burning, mulching, pulping, pulverizing, or shredding beyond recognition and reconstruction.
26.
5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3105.
The regulations in this part establish a procedure under which qualified paying agents may specially endorse definitive United States Savings Bonds of certain series and United States Savings Notes (Freedom Shares), and either redeem the securities so endorsed, or forward them to a TRS Site for redemption, with or without the owner's signature to the request for payment.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
Request by owner and validity of transaction guaranteed in accordance with Treasury Department Circular No. 888, as revised. (Name, location and paying agent code number assigned by a TRS Site.)
(b)
By the act of paying or submitting to any Federal Reserve Processing Site, any TRS Site, or any Treasury office authorized to redeem securities, a security on which it has affixed the special endorsement, a paying agent shall be deemed to have:
(a) Unconditionally guaranteed to the United States the validity of the transaction, including the identification of the owner and the disposition of the proceeds or the new bonds, as the case may be, in accordance with the presenter's instruction;
(b) Assumed complete and unconditional liability to the United States for any loss which may be incurred by the United States as a result of the transaction; and
(c) Unconditionally agreed to make prompt reimbursement for the amount of any loss, upon request of the Department of the Treasury.
(c)
* * * Securities so paid should be combined with other securities paid under that Circular and presented for settlement in accordance with 31 CFR part 321.
Specially endorsed securities that an agent is not authorized to redeem for cash or on exchange should be forwarded to a TRS Site in accordance with the instructions set forth in 31 CFR part 321. The transmittals must be accompanied by appropriate instructions governing the transaction and the disposition of the redemption proceeds. The securities must be kept
Federal Reserve Banks (including any Branch or office thereof, as appropriate) perform services as fiscal agents of the United States. These Federal Reserve Banks shall perform such services in connection with this part as may be requested by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee. These Federal Reserve Banks are authorized and directed to perform such duties, including the issuance of supplemental instructions and forms, as may be necessary to fulfill the purposes and requirements of these regulations. The instructions and guidance issued pursuant to § 321.27 set forth each Federal Reserve Bank that has been designated as a Federal Reserve Processing Site or as a TRS Site by the Secretary of the Treasury, or a designee.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Final rule.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is amending the Iranian Transactions Regulations to redefine the term
Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202/622-4855, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
By a separate rulemaking, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has amended the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 561 (the “IFSR”), and reissued them in their entirety, to implement section 1245(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. In the amended IFSR, OFAC defined the term
Because the ITR involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.
The collections of information related to the ITR are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Foreign Trade, Investments, Loans, Securities, Iran.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 560 as follows:
3 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 2339B, 2332d; 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9; 22 U.S.C. 7201-7211; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); Pub. L. 111-195, 124 Stat. 1312 (22 U.S.C. 8501-8551); E.O. 12613, 52 FR 41940, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12957, 60 FR 14615, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 332; E.O. 12959, 60 FR 24757, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13059, 62 FR 44531, 3 CFR, 1997 Comp., p. 217.
The term
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones in the Sector New York area of responsibility on various dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).
The regulations for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Ensign Kimberly Farnsworth, Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4163, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in Table 1 below. These regulations were published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, a vessel may not enter the regulated area unless given express permission from the COTP or the designated representative.Spectator vessels may transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability and response to comments.
On February 25, 2011, the Coast Guard published a document seeking comments on a petition for rulemaking to amend the Coast Guard regulation concerning foreign-rebuilt determinations for vessels entitled to a coastwise trade endorsement. Under the Jones Act, to maintain a coastwise trade endorsement, a vessel must not be rebuilt outside the United States. This document responds to the comments we received on our February 25, 2011 request for comments, and announces the availability of our response to the petitioners denying their petition.
On March 13, 2012, the Coast Guard denied the December 9, 2010 petition to amend 46 CFR 67.177.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this document as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-1124 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 online by going to
If you have questions on this document, call or email Lieutenant Commander Erin Ledford, Executive Secretary, Maritime Safety and Security Council, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-3857, email
In a petition dated December 9, 2010, Marc J. Fink, on behalf of a coalition of maritime organizations, petitioned the Coast Guard to amend 46 CFR 67.177, Application for foreign rebuilding determination. On February 25, 2011, we published a document in the
The regulation the petition seeks to amend sets the parameters for rebuilt-foreign determinations and directs when vessels with coastwise trade endorsements whose hulls or superstructure are altered outside the United States must submit a written statement to the National Vessel Documentation Center. Section 67.177 also states when vessel owners considering such alterations may seek a preliminary rebuilt determination.
Under 46 U.S.C. 12132(b), to maintain a coastwise endorsement a vessel must not be rebuilt outside the United States. For definitions of “coastwise endorsement” and “rebuilt in the United States,”
We received five submissions in response to our February 25, 2011 request for comments, and have responded to these comments below. After considering these comments we responded to the petitioners in a letter.
As reflected in that letter, we concluded that amendments to 46 CFR 67.177 are neither needed nor desired, and therefore we denied the petition. The petition and its three exhibits, along with our letter responding to the petition, are available in the docket as indicated under
All five submissions to the docket in response to our February 25, 2011 document, including a submission from the petitioners, supported the petition. Four of the five specifically requested that that we move forward expeditiously with a rulemaking in order to clarify what types and amounts of foreign shipyard work on vessels are allowed under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, known as the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 988, c. 250;
In their submission in response to the request for comments, the petitioners stated that amending § 67.177 is necessary to resolve a number of industry disputes over what types and amounts of foreign shipyard work on vessels are and are not permissible under the Jones Act. The petitioners also stated that amending § 67.177 as they proposed would be beneficial because this regulation would then—
• Specifically define “major component,” and thus clarify what constitutes a major component.
• Establish clear and uniform guidance to the industry regarding the Coast Guard's standards for determining when certain work on a vessel in a foreign shipyard constitutes a rebuilding of that vessel pursuant to the Second Proviso to the Jones Act.
• Resolve ambiguities and open questions in the current rules that are currently left unanswered by mixed court decisions, including what is the relationship between the “major component” test and the “considerable part” test.
A shipyard company stated that a definition of what constitutes a major component is needed for purposes of determining whether a vessel is rebuilt, and of when subassemblies individually added to a vessel become, in totality, a major component. This company noted that the existing discretionary rebuild test of 7.5 to 10 percent of hull or superstructure steel weight is ambiguous when applied to a vessel modification for purposes of evaluating compliance with the Jones Act, and that amending this provision to establish a single threshold for applying the rebuild test will significantly improve the conflicting interpretations of compliance that currently exist.
The Coast Guard believes that, as a result of the recent decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in
The Coast Guard notes that the current regulation was promulgated after controversy surrounding the previous attempt to regulate on this subject. That previous regulation—46 CFR 67.27-3, Required application for rebuilt determination (1988)—was challenged in court and overturned in 1989.
The petitioners may disagree with the substance and effect that the clarity established by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has revealed. However, the changes sought by the petition would, in the name of clarity, change the substantive outcomes of Coast Guard determinations and upset a regulatory regime that has been in place since 1996.
Prior to the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Coast Guard determinations that it affirmed, the foreign rebuild regulation may have appeared to some to be less than clear. However, that lack of clarity related less to the lack of a definition of “major component,” which is the centerpiece of petitioners' proposal, and more so to a structural tension in the rule itself; specifically, the uneasy combination of a quantitative test (the considerable part test) with a qualitative test (the major component test). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the Coast Guard's balancing of these tests and, as noted above, found that the Coast Guard's interpretive scheme had resolved those tensions.
For example, among the items deemed by petitioner's proposed rule to be major components are container racks. Even by petitioner's definition, major components are components of the hull or superstructure of a vessel. However, “hull” and “superstructure” remain defined terms at 46 CFR 67.3 and, in both cases, the central characteristic for any item to be considered a component of either is that it be structural in nature. It has long been the case that container racks (excluding their foundations, pedestals or required reinforcements) have been determined by the Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC), aided with technical support from naval architects and marine engineers at the Coast Guard Naval Architecture Division (NAD), to be non-structural “outfit.” As such, they would be and have been excluded from consideration under the major component test as well as, for that matter, from the calculation of the considerable part test. For a recent analysis of the structural or non-structural nature of container racks see the NVDC's U.S. build determination letter dated August 1, 2011, and accompanying analysis of the NAD dated July 15, 2011, in the case of a NASSCO flat-deck container barge, both of which are now posted on the NVDC Web site,
Consequently, while apparently retaining the requirement that major components must be structural components of the hull or superstructure, petitioners would nevertheless, as part of the same definition, specifically deem an item, long-established by expert analysis to be non-structural in nature, to be a major component. Including this specific item (the container rack) as a major component in the definition by regulatory fiat, would be inconsistent with Coast Guard prior practice; it would also be inconsistent with the proposed rule itself. While acknowledging the requirement that major components of the hull and superstructure must, at the very least, have a structural characteristic, the proposal would completely revamp that basic understanding.
The petitioners' proposed amendments, in the name of clarity, seek to re-balance the “holistic approach” found to characterize the current rule and its interpretation by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. By expanding the definition of “major component” it would give significantly greater weight to the major component test over the considerable part test. The reason for this effect is that the steelweight percentage threshold for an item to be considered a major component is 1.5 percent, while the steelweight percentage threshold of the considerable part test (even if amended as the petitioners' propose) is 10 percent. Consequently, by expanding the scope of what would be deemed a major component, it would become far more likely that proposed foreign work would be barred by that 1.5 percent threshold without even having to take into account the 10 percent threshold.
The NVDC's regulatory interpretations have been quite clear and consistent. In making its determinations, it considers the greater of steel added or steel removed. This is the conservative middle ground between those in industry who have advocated, on the one hand, that we consider both steel added and steel removed, and those who have advocated, on the other hand, that we consider only the net of steel added and steel removed.
The petitioners' proposed amendments would introduce other substantive changes. For example, the Coast Guard believes that none of the determinations leading up to the increase in Agency appeals, litigation and Court appeals of the last few years (including the MOKIHANA, SEABULK TRADER, SEABULK CHALLENGE, DELAWARE TRADER, PHILADELPHIA and NEW YORK) would be decided the same way under the petitioners' proposed amendments.
In addition, petitioner's proposal would establish new and onerous procedural impediments to any applicant seeking to have work done at a foreign shipyard. Their proposal would make the process slower, more cumbersome, inflexible, conducive to adversarial disputes and appeals by third parties—whether or not directly affected, and more resource-intensive for the Coast Guard.
For example, new determinations would be required as to whether proposed work was, or was not, casualty-related as well as whether no shipyard in the United States is capable or available to perform the desired work. Notices as to all actions and proposed actions would have to be posted in the
Moreover, virtually all applicants consider the information submitted to the Coast Guard in connection with requests for foreign rebuild determinations to be highly proprietary. When those determinations have been contested in the past, including in all of the cases already mentioned, they have been contested by direct commercial competitors of those applicants. Consequently, even a protective order might not offer sufficient proprietary protection to a potential applicant.
The effect of these procedural changes would be to present additional impediments, and thus, likely discourage potential applicants from even applying in the first place.
Finally, because of—
• The substantive re-balancing at the heart of the petition which would raise the bar (by lowering the applicable steelweight percentage in most cases) for any foreign work,
• The inclusion of items as major components which have never before been so included because they represent non-structural “outfit,”
• The procedural impediments which would have the effect of discouraging applicants, and
• Other more restrictive measures, such as the proposal to take into account the weight of both the steel added and the steel removed rather than the greater of the weight of either the steel added or the steel removed,
The Coast Guard understands that the national treatment obligation in the GATT 1994 requires the United States to treat imported goods no less favorably than domestic goods, including with regard to the sale, lease and use of the goods. Vessels engaged in the coastwise trade are considered goods for purposes of the GATT 1994.
The United States has a specific exemption from the national treatment and certain other obligations of the GATT 1994 for the Jones Act statutes and measures, such as the Coast Guard regulations implementing those statutes. That exemption is contained in paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994. Any changes to the Jones Act statutes or measures implementing those statutes must not make them less consistent with GATT 1994.
For a more detailed response to the specific amendments proposed by the petitioners, please see the March 13, 2012 letter in the docket responding to the petition for rulemaking. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 1.05-20 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to begin the process of considering amendments of its regulations that address a condition known as station blackout (SBO). SBO involves the loss of all onsite and offsite alternating current (ac) power at a nuclear power plant. The NRC seeks public comment on specific questions and issues with respect to possible revisions to the NRC's requirements for addressing SBO conditions to develop new SBO requirements and a supporting regulatory basis. This regulatory action is one of the near-term actions based on lessons-learned stemming from the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi accident in Japan.
Submit comments by May 4, 2012. Comments received after the comment period deadline will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before the end of the public comment period. Due to priority of this regulatory action and the associated effort on the part of the Commission to expedite the action, the Commission will not accept requests for extensions of the public comment period unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0299 in the subject line of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see “Submitting Comments and Accessing Information” in the
•
•
•
•
•
Timothy A. Reed, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1462, or email:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
•
•
•
On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of the Japanese island of Honshu. The earthquake resulted in a large tsunami that is estimated to have exceeded 14 meters (45 feet) in height, which inundated the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant site. The earthquake and tsunami produced widespread devastation across northeastern Japan, and significantly affected the infrastructure and industry in the northeastern coastal areas of Japan.
When the earthquake occurred, Fukushima Dai-ichi Units 1, 2, and 3 were in operation, and Units 4, 5, and 6, were shut down for routine refueling and maintenance activities. The Unit 4 reactor fuel had been offloaded into the Unit 4 spent fuel pool (SFP) to facilitate maintenance activities in the reactor pressure vessel. Following the earthquake, the three operating units automatically shut down and offsite power was lost to the entire facility. The emergency diesel generators started at all six units, providing ac electrical power to critical systems at each unit. The facility response to the earthquake appears to have been normal.
Approximately 40 minutes following the earthquake and shutdown of the operating units, the first large tsunami wave inundated the site, followed by additional waves. The tsunami caused extensive damage to site facilities and resulted in a complete loss of all ac electrical power at Units 1 through 5, a condition known as SBO. In addition, all direct current (dc) electrical power was lost early in the event on Units 1 and 2, and after some period of time at the other units. Unit 6 retained the function of one air-cooled emergency diesel generator. Despite their actions, the operators lost the ability to cool the fuel in the Unit 1 reactor after several hours, in the Unit 2 reactor after about 70 hours, and in the Unit 3 reactor after about 36 hours, resulting in damage to the nuclear fuel shortly after the loss of cooling capabilities.
In the days following the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident in Japan, the NRC Chairman directed the staff to establish a senior-level agency task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review of the NRC's processes and regulations to determine whether the agency should make additional improvements to its regulatory system and to make recommendations to the Commission for its policy direction. This direction was provided in a tasking memorandum dated March 23, 2011, from the NRC Chairman to the NRC Executive Director for Operations (COMGBJ-11-0002). In SECY-11-0093, “The Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan,” dated July 12, 2011, the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) provided its recommendations to the Commission regarding SBO and the need for revising the NRC's SBO rule (Title 10 of the
The NTTF provided a specific proposal for SBO mitigation that was subsequently endorsed by the National Resources Defense Council in a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-50-101 (76 FR 58165) as a way to address SBO mitigation. The approach for SBO mitigation put forth by the NTTF as NTTF Recommendation 4.1 was:
Initiate rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.63 to require each operating and new reactor licensee to: (1) Establish a minimum coping time of 8 hours for a loss of all ac power, (2) establish the equipment, procedures, and training necessary to implement an “extended loss of all ac” coping time of 72 hours for core and spent fuel pool cooling and for reactor coolant system and primary containment integrity as needed, and (3) preplan and prestage offsite resources to support uninterrupted core and spent fuel pool cooling, and reactor coolant system and containment integrity as needed, including the ability to deliver the equipment to the site in the time period allowed for extended coping, under conditions involving significant degradation of offsite transportation infrastructure associated with significant natural disasters.
In SECY-11-0124 and SECY-11-0137, the staff provided for Commission consideration its recommendations on those NTTF action items that should be initiated, in part or in whole, without unnecessary delay, and the associated prioritization for each item. Regarding SBO mitigation actions the staff recommended that the NRC, as a near-term action:
Engage stakeholders in support of rulemaking activities to enhance the capability to maintain safety through a prolonged SBO. These activities will include the development of the regulatory basis, a proposed rule, and implementing guidance.
In SRM-SECY-11-0124, dated October 18, 2011, the Commission approved the staff's proposed actions to implement without unnecessary delay the NTTF recommendations as described in SECY-11-0124. Subsequently, in SRM-SECY-11-0137, dated December 15, 2011, the Commission approved the staff's proposed prioritization of the NTTF recommendations and supported action on the recommendations subject to the direction in the SRM.
Regarding regulatory actions to address SBO, the Commission directed the staff to initiate a rulemaking on NTTF Recommendation 4.1 in the form of an ANPR. This document is responsive to that Commission direction.
In November 2011, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) issued INPO-11-005, “Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station.” In SRM-SECY-11-0137, the Commission directed the staff to use INPO-11-005 as an input to its development of technical bases for any proposed regulatory changes. Much of the technical information regarding the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident discussed in this document has been derived from INPO-11-005.
As defined in 10 CFR 50.2, “design bases” means that information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by a facility structure, system, or component (SSC), and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. The actual detailed design of facility SSCs must reflect the assigned design basis functions and assure performance of those functions within the reference bounds for design. An applicant for a construction permit or combined license for a facility is required, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34(a)(3) or 52.79(a)(4)(i), respectively, to describe the principal design criteria (PDC) for the proposed facility. The PDC generally identify facility SSCs and their functions, which is part of the design bases described above. U.S. facilities for which construction permits were issued before 1971 had plant-specific PDC, since the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the authority that was the predecessor to the NRC, had yet to develop generic requirements for facility design criteria at that time.
On July 11, 1967, the AEC published for comment a proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 50 entitled “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits” (32 FR 10213). Subsequently, on February 20, 1971, the AEC published the final general design
General Design Criterion 2 currently requires nuclear power plants designed in accordance with appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 to be protected against natural phenomena. Specifically, SSCs important to safety shall be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. The design bases for these structures, systems, and components shall reflect: (1) Appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated; (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena; and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed. Severe natural phenomena may be reflected in a facility design basis through selection and appropriate consideration of severe events that will then be the basis for establishing the reference bounds for the design. Accordingly, the questions in this ANPR will refer to the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design associated with natural phenomena as “the bounding events selected for design purposes.”
General Design Criterion 17 governs electric power systems for nuclear power plants designed in accordance with appendix A to 10 CFR part 50. The draft version of this GDC published for comment in 1967 was proposed GDC 39, “Emergency Power for Engineered Safety Features (Category A)” (32 FR 10213). Proposed GDC 39 read as follows:
Alternate power systems shall be provided and designed with adequate independency, redundancy, capacity, and testability to permit the functioning required of the engineered safety features. As a minimum, the onsite power system and the offsite power system shall each, independently, provide this capacity assuming a failure of a single active component in each power system.
The public comments on proposed GDC 39 stated that the requirement that offsite power must satisfy the “single failure criterion” was impractical and asked the Commission to eliminate all reference to offsite power. The resolution to the comment stated the following:
The criterion has been rewritten to make it clear that the offsite power system need not meet the “single failure criterion.” Reference to offsite power has not been deleted because we believe that offsite power is required to provide adequate assurance of safety (see New Criterion 17). New Criterion 17 has been discussed with the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Subcommittee which is developing criteria for power requirements for nuclear power units. The members of the subcommittee indicated that the new criterion is acceptable and consistent with their requirements.
Therefore, the Commission promulgated GDC 17 in appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 to state as follows:
An onsite electrical power system and an offsite electrical power system shall be provided to permit functioning of structures, systems, and components important to safety. The safety function for each system (assuming the other system is not functioning) shall be to provide sufficient capacity and capability to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents.
The onsite electrical power sources, including the batteries, and the onsite electrical distribution system, shall have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure.
Electrical power from the transmission network to the switchyard shall be supplied by two physically independent transmission lines (not necessarily on separate rights of way) designed and located so as to suitably minimize the likelihood of their simultaneous failure under operating and postulated accident and environmental conditions. Two physically independent circuits from the switchyard to the onsite electrical distribution system shall be provided. Each of these circuits shall be designed to be available in sufficient time following a loss of all onsite alternating current power sources and the other offsite electrical power circuit, to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded. One of these circuits shall be designed to be available within a few seconds following a loss-of-coolant accident to assure that core cooling, containment integrity, and other vital safety functions are maintained.
Provisions shall be included to minimize the probability of losing electrical power from any of the remaining sources as a result of, or coincident with, the loss of power generated by the nuclear power unit, the loss of power from the transmission network, or the loss of power from the onsite electrical power sources.
Section 8.2, “Offsite Power System,” of NUREG-75/087, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition” (SRP), published May 1980, and NUREG-0800, originally published November 1975 with the most current revision published May 2010, provide the review guidelines and acceptance criteria for the offsite power system. Similarly, Section 8.3 of the SRP provides the review guidelines and acceptance criteria for the onsite ac power system. For nuclear power plants that were licensed before GDC 17 applied, the plant-specific PDC, which are set forth in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, provide the applicable design criteria. A significant fraction of currently operating nuclear power facilities were licensed in accordance with plant-specific PDC rather than the GDC.
The availability of ac electrical power is essential for the safe operation and accident recovery of commercial nuclear power plants. The plant itself or offsite power sources normally supply this power through the plant switchyard, through which the plant is connected to the electrical grid. The term SBO is defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as follows:
Station blackout (SBO) means the complete loss of alternating current (ac) electric power to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses in a nuclear power plant (i.e., loss of offsite electric power system concurrent with turbine trip and unavailability of the onsite emergency ac power system). Station blackout does not include the loss of available ac power to buses fed by station
Because many of the safety systems relied upon for reactor core decay heat removal and containment heat removal are dependent on ac power, the consequences of an SBO could be significant. In the event of an SBO, the capability to cool the reactor core is dependent on the availability of systems that do not rely upon ac power from the essential or nonessential switchgear buses for a specified time, and on the ability to restore ac power within the specified time. Unavailability of power can have a significant adverse impact on a plant's ability to achieve and maintain safe-shutdown conditions. In fact, risk analyses performed for nuclear power plants indicate that the loss of all ac power can be a significant contributor to the risk associated with plant operation, contributing more than 70 percent of the overall risk at some plants. Therefore, the frequency of a loss of offsite power (LOOP) and the time for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant risk models, and these inputs must reflect current industry performance in order for plant risk models to accurately estimate the risk associated with LOOP-initiated scenarios.
One important subset of LOOP-initiated scenarios involves SBO situations in which the affected plant achieves safe shutdown by relying on components that are not ac powered, such as turbine- or diesel-driven pumps. Thus, the reliability of such components, dc battery depletion times, and characteristics of offsite power restoration are important in determining risk from an SBO.
The SBO rule was developed based on insights gained from several plant-specific probabilistic safety studies; operating experience; and reliability, accident sequence, and consequence analyses completed between 1975 and 1988. One such study, WASH-1400, “Reactor Safety Study,” issued in 1975, indicated that SBO could be an important contributor to the total risk from nuclear power plant accidents. In 1980, the Commission designated the issue of SBO as Unresolved Safety Issue A-44, “Station Blackout.” The technical findings of the staff's studies of the SBO issue are presented in NUREG-1032, “Evaluation of Station Blackout Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants, Technical Findings Related to Unresolved Safety Issue A-44,” June 1988.
The final rule containing SBO requirements was published in the
The SBO rule requires that nuclear power plants have the capability to withstand an SBO and maintain core cooling and containment integrity for a specified duration. The specified SBO duration for a plant is determined based on (1) the redundancy of the onsite emergency ac power sources, (2) the reliability of the onsite emergency ac power sources, (3) the expected frequency of LOOP at the particular site, and (4) the probable time needed to restore offsite power. The assumption used for a LOOP at a plant site was an initiating event resulting from a switchyard-related or grid-related event due to random faults, or an external event, such as a grid disturbance, or weather events such as high winds, snow, and ice loading that affects the offsite power system either throughout the grid or at the plant. During the development of the current SBO rule, it was concluded that there was a sufficiently low likelihood of a LOOP generated by a fire, flood, or seismic activity and that preexisting licensing requirements specified sufficient protective measures such that LOOPs from such causes need not be considered under the SBO rule requirements (see NUREG-1032 and NUREG/CR-3226 for further detail).
In order to meet the requirements of the SBO rule and depending on the station's existing capability, some stations were modified (i.e., by adding an alternate ac power source or increasing the capacity of the station batteries, plant/instrument air system, or condensate storage tank) in order to cope with the longer station blackout duration. In addition, licensees enhanced station procedures and training for restoring both offsite and onsite ac power sources. The NRC and its licensees also increased their emphasis on establishing and maintaining high reliability of onsite emergency power sources. The SBO rule does not require systems and equipment used to cope with SBO to meet 10 CFR part 50 quality assurance requirements for safety-related equipment; instead, Appendix A of RG 1.155 provides the applicable quality assurance guidance for non-safety systems and equipment used to meet the SBO rule requirements.
Once the NRC has approved the “specified duration” of an SBO and the coping analysis for a particular facility, the SBO rule does not require licensees to update either the specified duration or the coping analyses. However, the parameters that were used for inputs into both the determination of the specified duration and the SBO coping analysis are subject to change over time. These parameters include the number of LOOP events expected at a particular site, recovery time for offsite power, frequency of grid blackout events, and diesel generator reliability. Changes to these parameters may have a significant effect on the SBO duration and coping analyses originally performed by the licensees. Nonetheless, if the NRC determines that a licensee's plans for coping with an SBO are no longer adequate, the NRC could require a licensee to modify its SBO plans or related equipment as necessary, so long as the NRC satisfies the requirements of the Backfit Rule (10 CFR 50.109).
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-96) from Thomas Popik (the petitioner) that deals with long-term cooling and unattended water makeup of SFPs due to potential long term grid loss stemming from extreme
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC ordered licensees to develop and implement specific guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities using existing or readily available resources that can be effectively implemented under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire. After further development, these requirements were imposed as license conditions for individual licensees and formalized in the rulemaking of March 27, 2009, in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) (74 FR 13969). Events at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami highlighted the further potential benefits for these same strategies to mitigate the effects of prolonged SBOs or other events that may challenge core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling.
In its SRM on SECY-11-0124, the Commission directed the staff to initiate a rulemaking to address SBO by means of an ANPR. Accordingly, this ANPR's objective is to solicit external stakeholder input to support the staff's efforts to assemble a regulatory basis for a rule that amends SBO requirements. The Commission also encouraged the staff to craft recommendations that continue to realize the strengths of a performance-based system as a guiding principle. The Commission indicated that, to be effective, approaches should be flexible and able to accommodate a diverse range of circumstances and conditions. The Commission stated that for consideration of events beyond the design basis, a regulatory approach founded on performance-based requirements will foster development of the most effective and efficient site-specific mitigation strategies, similar to how the agency approached the approval of licensee response strategies for the “loss of large area” event addressed in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2).
The NRC is open to flexible, performance-based strategies to address SBO mitigation. The following questions are intended to solicit information that will support development of such a framework and assembly of a complete and adequate regulatory basis for any rule changes that are ultimately determined to be justified. In this context, commenters are encouraged to provide information on any aspect of SBO mitigation that would support this regulatory objective, whether in response to an ANPR question or not.
The NRC would like external stakeholders to respond to the following questions to support the NRC's efforts to define the scope of the regulatory framework.
1. Recognizing the uncertainties associated with natural phenomena and in the context of establishing a set of events upon which to base reference bounds for design, should SBO equipment be designed to withstand natural phenomena which the facility is not already designed to withstand, and should SBO mitigation strategies consider such natural phenomena? What severity of natural phenomena should be considered (e.g., length of return period or duration of the phenomena)? For example, flooding risks are of concern due to a “cliff-edge” effect, in that the safety consequences of a flooding event may increase sharply with only a small increase in the flooding level. Therefore, to address uncertainties for SBO events and to build in additional defense-in-depth margin to mitigate SBO for such events, should analysis of an SBO consider a flood elevation at some prescribed level above the level for which the plant is designed? If so, what criteria should be used to establish the prescribed level? What is the basis for your position?
2. If such an analysis (per the above question) is warranted, what margin in addition to that included in the reference bounds for design should be considered? For existing facilities, should such an analysis include factors such as the existence of nearby dams or water sources?
3. For events that do not fall within the reference bounds for design, but may result in SBO conditions, it may be necessary for licensees to take early action in order to increase the potential for successful mitigation. Recognizing that there are several actions that take time during such events that include, but are not limited to (1) the need to properly identify and diagnose the event or situation, (2) the need to make the decision to implement actions or strategies to mitigate existing or imminent SBO conditions, and (3) the time for licensees to implement the strategies once the decision is made; what time constraints do stakeholders understand to be important in developing SBO mitigation requirements? For example, what should be the coping time with no mitigation for SBO conditions given time constraints that include the time to (1) identify and determine the need to take mitigative actions and (2) implement these strategies under worst case conditions? How long should mitigation strategies be expected to be deployed before the receipt of offsite assistance? If certain mitigation actions must be taken early in the event to avert core damage, how should those actions be determined and how should the time when they must be performed be determined?
4. Similar to question B.2, but from a broader perspective of establishing all the new SBO mitigation requirements: Different regions of the United States have different natural phenomena that are more significant in terms of potentially creating SBO conditions. Should the NRC construct a new regulatory framework containing criteria that enable licensees to establish the set of natural phenomena of concern for their sites? If so, what criteria should be used to determine whether an event needs to be considered at a particular site? Please provide the basis for your position.
5. The current requirements in 10 CFR 50.63 for SBO are “unit-specific,” meaning that the total loss of all ac is not assumed to extend to all the power reactors at a given site. Based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi event, the NRC believes the SBO requirements may need to be expanded to consider an SBO for the entire site (i.e., assume the SBO condition occurs to all the units for multi-unit sites). What are stakeholder views on this matter, and how should it
6. The current provisions in 10 CFR 50.63 require a facility to withstand, for a specified duration, and recover from an SBO as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Should the new SBO rule require long-term cooling and water makeup to SFPs during an SBO? Please provide the basis for your position.
7. Should the SBO rule address how external events would affect the “specific duration” of the SBO and the associated coping time? Specifically:
a. Should the NRC require consideration of the likelihood of external events that fall outside the bounding events selected for design purposes in the determination of SBO specified duration, or the capability to cope with an SBO for the specified duration, or both? If so, what should the rule require? What is the basis for your position?
b. Should the NRC require consideration of additional margin in the probability or magnitude (or both) of bounding events selected for design purposes with respect to natural phenomena (e.g., design basis external flood plus 10 additional feet or extending the ability to withstand the total loss of ac power for longer durations) in the determination of SBO specified duration or the capability to cope with an SBO during the specified duration, or both? Provide any proposed rule provisions and a discussion that supports your position.
c. Should the SBO rule require applicants and licensees to address a more challenging condition such as the total loss of all ac, including ac from the dc batteries through inverters? Please provide the basis for your position.
8. If new requirements as discussed in this section should be imposed for existing licensees or with respect to existing certified designs, what sort of benefits or costs do stakeholders estimate could be incurred?
The NRC is considering whether enhancements to current SBO requirements are advisable in order to consider natural phenomena beyond the plant-specific events selected as bounding for design purposes, even if the plant's design basis meets the NRC requirements and guidance for natural phenomena that are applicable to new plant applications. The NRC would like stakeholder views on specific regulatory objectives and success criteria for the potential rulemaking, as follows:
1. What specific objectives should the SBO rule be designed to achieve?
a. For example, should the objective of the SBO rule be to significantly reduce the frequency of core damage from a prolonged SBO, or would it be better to focus on the reduction of the frequency of large early release of radiation for low probability external events that result in SBO conditions? Please provide the basis for your position.
b. Alternatively, should the SBO rule be designed to achieve a more qualitative safety objective such as increasing, as a defense-in-depth measure, requirements for the mitigating strategies to cope with prolonged SBO conditions stemming from events that do not fall within the reference bounds for the design, assuming GDC 2 (or the corresponding PDC) is satisfied? Please provide the basis for your position.
c. Should the SBO rule provide increased assurance that the facility can achieve and maintain a safe shutdown condition under SBO conditions for a set of initiating events that lead to SBO conditions, and as one way of doing this, enable licensees to use a criterion for determining the set of conditions that apply to their plants or sites? Please provide the basis for your position.
d. Should the NRC adopt an SBO rule that is more performance-based and which would not specify the events that must be considered in determining the SBO duration or the capability for coping with an SBO of specified duration? Specifically should the NRC structure an SBO rule as follows:
(1) Require each applicant and licensee to develop, implement, and maintain SBO procedures that describe how the licensee will address the following areas if the plant experiences an event that exceeds the values or does not fall within the ranges of values chosen for the reference bounds for the design of the facility:
(i) Communication with onsite personnel and offsite entities providing support to mitigate the event;
(ii) Onsite actions necessary to enhance the capability of the facility to mitigate the consequences of the loss of all ac power and other equipment damage;
(iii) Dispersal of equipment and personnel, as well as rapid entry into site protected areas for essential onsite personnel and offsite responders who are necessary to mitigate the event; and
(iv) Recall of site personnel.
(2) Require each applicant and licensee to develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with the loss of all ac power, from an event that does not fall within the reference bounds chosen for the design of the facility, including:
(i) Station blackout coping and power restoration activities;
(ii) Operations to mitigate fuel damage; and
(iii) Actions to minimize radiological release.
Please provide the basis for your position.
e. Recognizing that the SBO mitigation requirements could address a set of events that fall outside the reference bounds for design of the plant and may lead to SBO conditions, success criteria might be more readily established. Should the rule establish success criteria or requirements that apply as a function of the probability of the events? For example, for the more probable/common SBO events, such as those that 10 CFR 50.63 currently addresses, the current 10 CFR 50.63 requirements could largely remain in place. For the low probability, high consequence, hazard-driven SBOs, a different set of success criteria could be established that recognize the lower probabilities of occurrence of these types of SBOs. Please provide the basis for your position.
2. How should actions taken to address the staff's recommended approach for NTTF Recommendation 4.2 be used to support the development of SBO mitigation requirements within a coherent, integrated regulatory framework? Provide a discussion that supports your position.
3. The NRC would like stakeholder's views on a regulatory approach to SBO mitigation that conceptually follows the NTTF proposal in NTTF Recommendation 4.1. Specifically, do stakeholders believe that the best conceptual approach for SBO mitigation is to establish requirements for an initial coping period (no ac power available), during which time licensees establish mitigation strategies; followed by an interim period during which time the mitigation strategies are employed for a duration sufficient to enable offsite relief to arrive; followed by a final phase where offsite relief has arrived and a stable shutdown condition is established? Alternatively, if stakeholders have alternative approaches or suggested changes to this conceptual approach, please provide the basis for them.
The NRC notes that there is a close relationship between the SBO mitigation requirements under consideration in this regulatory effort and several other near-term actions
4. Recognizing that SBO mitigation may rely upon Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) and Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs), how should regulatory actions taken to address NTTF Recommendation 8 with regard to coordination of EOPs, SAMGs, and Extensive Damage Mitigation Guidelines be best integrated with SBO mitigation requirements to ensure that actions to address each of these NTTF recommendations do not unduly overlap or inadvertently introduce unnecessary redundancy, inconsistency, or other unintended consequences?
5. Recognizing that the containment function is a key defense-in-depth measure for SBO events, how should regulatory actions to address NTTF Recommendation 5.1, which discusses installation of reliable hardened containment vent systems for boiling water reactors with Mark I and II containments designs, be integrated with potential SBO load-shedding mitigation activities to ensure that actions to address each of these NTTF recommendations do not unduly overlap or inadvertently introduce unnecessary redundancy, inconsistency, or other unintended consequences?
6. Recognizing the importance of SFP cooling and the need to understand the condition of the SFP, how should regulatory actions taken to address NTTF Recommendation 7.1, which addresses SFP instrumentation, be integrated into SBO mitigation plans to ensure that actions to address each of these NTTF recommendations do not unduly overlap or inadvertently introduce unnecessary redundancy, inconsistency, or other unintended consequences?
An important element of a new set of SBO requirements would be identifying the functions that need to be performed under SBO conditions, since performance of these functions relates directly to achieving the objectives of the rulemaking. Additionally, establishing the functions that must be performed enables the identification of the set of SSCs (SBO mitigation equipment) and supporting procedures, guidelines, and strategies that would need to be employed. The NRC considers the key safety functions identified below to be the essential functions for SBO mitigation, and would like stakeholder's views on whether this is the correct set:
1. Reactor core cooling;
2. Spent fuel pool cooling; and
3. Containment.
With regard to the requirements that would stem from identification of the SBO mitigation functions, the NRC would like stakeholder views on:
1. What requirements (e.g., design, inspection, testing, quality assurance, corrective action) should be applied to the SBO mitigation SSCs that perform the key safety functions to provide increased assurance that the functions can be performed? What constitutes increased assurance (i.e., what must be achieved with the additional treatment requirements) for the mitigation of SBO conditions stemming from either design basis events or from external events that exceed the events chosen as bounding for design purposes? Please provide the basis for your position.
2. What requirements for supporting procedures, guidelines, strategies, and training should be included within the SBO rule (also refer to question C.6)? Please provide the basis for your position.
3. Should the SBO rule address licensee staffing requirements for SBO mitigation for an event involving more than a single unit (for multi-unit sites)? Please provide the basis for your position.
4. Should the NRC require surveillance testing and limiting conditions for operation for some or all equipment credited for mitigating an SBO event? Alternatively, should the NRC use a different approach for testing of SBO equipment, such as either specific testing requirements in a new rule, use of 10 CFR 50.65 (Maintenance Rule), or other existing plant processes? Please provide the basis for your position.
5. Should the NRC require applicants and licensees to describe the SSCs, supporting procedures, and programs used to implement the new SBO requirements in the Final Safety Analysis Report? Alternatively, should the NRC consider a special change control requirement for these SSCs, procedures, and programs? If stakeholders agree that such a requirement would be valuable, what criteria would be used to determine when changes could be made without prior NRC review and approval?
6. If new requirements under the items above were to be imposed for existing licensees or with respect to existing certified designs, what sort of benefits and costs do stakeholders estimate could be incurred?
The NRC would apply any new SBO requirements to power reactors, both currently operating and new reactors, and would like stakeholder input on this aspect of the rule. Accordingly, the NRC envisions that this would include (but not be limited to):
1. Nuclear power plants currently licensed under 10 CFR parts 50 or 52;
2. Nuclear power plants currently being constructed under construction permits issued under 10 CFR part 50, or whose construction permits may be reinstated;
3. Current and future applications for standard design certification and standard design approval under 10 CFR part 52;
4. Future nuclear power plants whose construction permits and operating licenses are issued under 10 CFR part 50;
5. Future nuclear power plants whose combined licenses are issued under 10 CFR part 52, and
6. Future nuclear power plants that are manufactured under 10 CFR part 52.
The NRC is considering how any new SBO requirements would relate to the existing SBO requirements in 10 CFR 50.63, and has identified three approaches:
1. Approach 1 (Base Case—Supplementary SBO Requirements): The new SBO requirements would 1) address SBO issues which are separate from, and address scenarios which go beyond, the existing 10 CFR 50.63 requirements; and 2) be added to the existing 10 CFR 50.63 SBO requirements, possibly in a new section (e.g., 10 CFR 50.XX). This approach would not change the existing 10 CFR 50.63 requirements, with the exception of some conforming changes needed to ensure coordination between the existing, unchanged 10 CFR 50.63 requirements, and the newly-added SBO requirements.
2. Approach 2 (Unified SBO Requirements): The new SBO requirements would: (1) Address SBO issues which are separate from, and address scenarios which go beyond, the existing 10 CFR 50.63 requirements (same as Element 1 of Approach 1); and (2) be integrated into a single rule,
3. Approach 3 (Superseding SBO Requirements): The new SBO requirements would envelope the full spectrum of issues, accidents, plant conditions, and performance objectives that each nuclear power plant must meet, so that the existing SBO requirements in 10 CFR 50.63 would be subsumed in the new rule. This approach differs from Approach 1 in that the new SBO requirements would address SBOs whose characteristics and scope may be more “severe” than originally envisioned in 10 CFR 50.63. Under Approach 3, the new SBO requirements would entirely supersede and displace the existing SBO requirements in 10 CFR 50.63. All existing SBO requirements would be removed from 10 CFR 50.63 and licensees would be required to change their SBO licensing bases (e.g., change or remove a Final Safety Analysis Report description, a technical specification, or a license condition) to comply with the new requirements.
The NRC therefore seeks stakeholder views on which of these options is best suited for implementing new requirements recommended in response to ANPR Sections B, C, and D, above. What is the basis for your position?
By letter dated October 13, 2011, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) provided its recommendations concerning near-term actions that should be taken without delay. With regard to the mitigation of SBO, the ACRS recommended that:
Staff should also require licensees to provide an assessment of capabilities to cope with an extended SBO, including system vulnerabilities (e.g., reactor coolant pump seal qualifications) and capabilities to mobilize and deliver offsite resources (e.g., portable generators, fuel supplies, water pumping equipment). This information will inform staff interactions with the industry during the rulemaking process and help develop guidance that can be applied in the near term for enhanced confidence that each site has identified their available options.
Accordingly, the NRC is interested in stakeholder feedback regarding both current and projected future (i.e., considering other actions that could stem from the staff's recommendation to address NTTF Recommendation 4.2 as well as other relevant NTTF actions) capabilities for coping with an extended SBO, including system vulnerabilities. Additionally, the NRC would like stakeholder views concerning the capabilities to mobilize and deliver offsite resources (e.g., portable generators, fuel supplies, water pumping equipment) as contemplated by both the NTTF and by the industry conceptual approach described in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) paper, “An Integrated, Safety-Focused Approach to Expediting Implementation of Fukushima Daiichi Lessons-Learned,” dated December 16, 2011.
The NRC plans to hold a category 3 public meeting with stakeholders during the ANPR public comment period. The public meeting is intended to provide a forum to discuss the ANPR with external stakeholders and inform stakeholder views on SBO mitigation to enable stakeholders to provide feedback. The meeting is not intended for the NRC to receive comments and instead the NRC will encourage stakeholders to provide any comments in written form. To support full participation of stakeholders, the staff plans to provide teleconferencing and Webinar access. The NRC does not intend to transcribe the meeting. The NRC will issue the public meeting notice at least 10 days prior to the public meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting Web site:
The NRC does not intend to provide detailed comment responses for information provided in response to this ANPR. The NRC will consider timely comments on this ANPR in the rule development process. If the NRC ultimately develops a proposed rule on SBO requirements, any notice of proposed rulemaking will provide an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, and the NRC will document its responses to any comments received in accordance with the notice. If supporting guidance is developed for a proposed rule, stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the guidance as well.
The following documents provide additional background and supporting information regarding this rulemaking activity. The documents can be found using any of the methods provided in the table. Instructions for accessing ADAMS were provided under the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of data availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is informing the public of its collection of shipment data and creation of spreadsheet models to provide comparisons between actual and benchmark estimate unit sales of five lamp types (
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) was enacted on December 19, 2007. Among the requirements of subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of title III of EISA 2007 were provisions directing DOE to collect, analyze, and monitor unit sales of five lamp types (
On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a notice of data availability (NODA) for the
EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (4)(H) which state that if DOE finds that the unit sales for a given lamp type in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (
As in the 2008 analysis and 2010 comparison, DOE uses manufacturer shipments as a surrogate for unit sales in this NODA because manufacturer shipment data is tracked and aggregated by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE believes that annual shipments track closely with actual unit sales of these five lamp types, as DOE presumes that retailer inventories remain constant from year to year. DOE believes this is a reasonable assumption because the markets for these five lamp types have existed for many years, thereby enabling manufacturers and retailers to establish appropriate inventory levels that reflect market demand. Furthermore, in the long-run, unit sales could not increase in any one year without manufacturer shipments increasing either that year or the following one. In either case, increasing unit sales must eventually result in increasing manufacturer shipments. This is the same methodology presented in DOE's 2008 analysis and 2010 comparison, and the Department did not receive any comments challenging this assumption or the general approach.
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “rough service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `rough service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii) is designated and marketed specifically for `rough service' applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being for rough service.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X)).
As noted above, rough service incandescent lamps must have a minimum of five filament support wires (not counting the two connecting leads at the beginning and end of the filament), and must be designated and marketed for “rough service” applications. This type of incandescent lamp is typically used in applications where the lamp would be subject to mechanical shock or vibration while it is operating. Standard incandescent lamps have only two support wires (which also serve as conductors), one at each end of the filament coil. When operating (
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “vibration service lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `vibration service lamp' means a lamp that—(i) Has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or vibration-resistant applications, with—(I) the designation appearing on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being vibration service only.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))
The statute mentions three examples of filament configurations for vibration service lamps in Figure 6-12 of the
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “3-way incandescent lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The term `3-way incandescent lamp' includes an incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in combination, to provide 3 light levels; and (ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y)).
Three-way lamps are commonly found in wattage combinations such as 50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 100 watts. These lamps use two filaments (
The statute does not provide a definition of “2,601-3,300 Lumen General Service Incandescent Lamps”; however, DOE is interpreting this term to be a general service incandescent lamp
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA by adding the definition of a “shatter-resistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or shatter-protected lamp.” The statutory definition reads as follows: “The terms `shatter-resistant lamp,' `shatter-proof lamp,' and `shatter-protected lamp' mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant with [National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute] NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated and marketed for the intended application, with—(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatter-protected.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition provides three names commonly used to refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers to them collectively as “shatter-resistant lamps.”
Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a special coating designed to prevent glass shards from being strewn if a lamp's glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a coating compliant with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,
In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed each of the five sets of shipment data that were collected in consultation with NEMA and applied two curve fits to generate unit sales estimates for the five lamp types after calendar year 2006. One curve fit applied a linear regression to the historical data and extends that line into the future. The other curve fit applied an exponential growth function to the shipment data and projects unit sales into the future. For this calculation, linear regression treats the year as a dependent variable and shipments as the independent variable. The linear regression curve fit is modeled by minimizing the differences
For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps, DOE found that the linear regression and exponential growth curve fits produced nearly the same estimates of unit sales (
For rough service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2011 to be 6,080,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 6,829,000 rough service lamps in 2011. As this finding exceeds the estimate by only 12.3 percent, DOE will continue to track rough service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For vibration service lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2011 to be 3,176,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 914,000 vibration service lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 28.8 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track vibration service lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For 3-way incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2011 to be 50,652,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 31,619,000 3-way incandescent lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 62.4 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 3-way incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2011 to be 33,913,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 9,878,000 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps in 2011. As this finding is 29.1 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
For shatter-resistant lamps, the exponential growth forecast projected the benchmark unit sales estimate for 2011 to be 1,659,000 units. The NEMA-provided shipment data reported shipments of 1,210,000 shatter-resistant lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 72.9 percent of the estimate, DOE will continue to track shatter-resistant lamp sales data and will not initiate regulatory action for this lamp type at this time.
None of the shipments for the rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed the statutory threshold for a standard. DOE will monitor the situation for these five currently exempted lamp types and will reassess 2012 sales by March 31, 2013, in order to determine whether energy conservation standards rulemaking is required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a passenger oxygen pipe at frame 10 was chafing against the forward lavatory rear structure, raising the risk of the oxygen pipe developing a crack. This proposed AD would require modifying the routing of and, if necessary, replacing, the oxygen pipe. We are proposing this AD to prevent rupture of the oxygen pipe which, in case of a cabin depressurization, would impair operation of the passenger oxygen distribution system.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
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
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0070, dated April 18, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Inspections of two aeroplanes during cabin completions have shown that a passenger oxygen line at frame 10 was chafing with the forward lavatory rear structure.
Design review of the area confirmed a local low clearance value which raises the risk of the oxygen line developing a crack.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to rupture of the oxygen line which, in case of a cabin depressurization, would impair operation of the passengers' oxygen distribution system.
To address this unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation have designed a modification with a new oxygen line routing.
This AD requires an [general visual] inspection of the oxygen line for interference or damage and, in case of discrepancies [damage, or clearance less than 3 mm], accomplishment of the modification [including general visual inspections, and, if necessary, replacing the oxygen line/pipe] before next flight. It requires as well accomplishment of the modification of the oxygen line routing for the aeroplanes in which [clearance of 3 mm or more but less than 12 mm] were identified.
Dassault Aviation has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, dated March 10, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: The MCAI specifies that all airplanes must be modified before further flight if any discrepancy is found, and if no discrepancy, the modification must be done within 98 months or 4,000 flight cycles. This AD requires modification before further flight if damage or a certain clearance is found, and if a certain other clearance is found, modification within 98 months or 4,000 flight cycles. No modification is necessary for airplanes having a clearance of 12 mm or more.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 11 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the 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 $10,285, or $935 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $655, for a cost of $2,015 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
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, 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 May 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 3, 10, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 71, 76, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 93; except for airplanes on which the Dassault Aviation modification specified in Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, has been incorporated.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report that a passenger oxygen pipe at frame 10 was chafing against the forward lavatory rear structure, raising the risk of the oxygen pipe developing a crack. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of the oxygen pipe which, in case of a cabin depressurization, would impair operation of the passenger oxygen distribution system.
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 2 months after the effective date of this AD, do a boroscope inspection of the passenger oxygen pipe for clearance and a general visual inspection for damage of the oxygen pipe, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, dated March 10, 2011.
If during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD any damage is found or oxygen pipe clearance is less than 3 millimeters (mm) (0.12 inch): Before further flight, modify the oxygen pipe routing, including doing a general visual inspection for chafing of the pipe and doing all applicable replacements, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, dated March 10, 2011.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, oxygen pipe clearance is 3 mm (0.12 inch) or more but less than 12 mm (0.47 inch): Within 98 months or 4,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify the routing of the passenger oxygen pipe, including doing a general visual inspection for chafing of the pipe and doing all applicable replacements, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, dated March 10, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2011-0070, dated April 18, 2011; and Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 7X-174, Initial Issuance, dated March 10, 2011; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of incorrectly installed bolts common to the rear spar termination fitting on the horizontal stabilizer. This proposed AD would require inspecting for a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC” on the left- and right-side horizontal stabilizer identification plate; a detailed inspection for correct bolt protrusion and chamfer of the termination fitting bolts of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, if necessary; inspecting to determine if certain bolts are installed, if necessary, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would also require
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6440; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of incorrectly installed bolts common to the rear spar terminal fitting of the horizontal stabilizer. During manufacturing, the termination fitting bolts were installed without proper thread protrusion due to missing washers. This resulted in an unclamped condition between the horizontal stabilizer rear spar and the termination fitting. Loose bolts attaching the horizontal stabilizer termination fitting can lead to premature cracking of the fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer attachment and loss of control of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011. This service information describes procedures for inspecting for a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC” on the left- and right-side horizontal stabilizer identification plate; a detailed inspection for correct bolt protrusion and chamfer of the termination fitting fasteners of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, if necessary; an inspection to determine if certain bolts are installed, if necessary, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information also describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and ultrasonic (UT) inspections for cracking of the termination fitting at certain bolt locations, and repair if necessary.
The related investigative action is a detailed inspection for damage (including chafing, galling, nicks, gouges, and exposed bare metal) of the bolt shank. The corrective action includes installing new hardware, replacing the bolt with a new bolt, and contacting The Boeing Company for repair instructions and doing the repair.
The initial compliance time for certain airplanes is before 32,000 total flight cycles or within 12 months after the original issue date of the service information. For certain other airplanes, the initial compliance time is before 36,000 total flight cycles or within 12 months after the original issue date of the service information.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information.”
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, does not specify doing an inspection for bolt type. This proposed AD would require inspection for correct bolt type. If incorrect bolt type is found, paragraph (k) of this proposed AD would require repair using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (l).
Figure 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, contains an error. The illustration of an identification plate that points to the location of a part number should point to the serial number and the example “SAIC 1234” should be located on the serial number line. This proposed AD requires an inspection for an identification plate with a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC.”
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 373 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions (contacting Boeing and repairing cracks or damage) specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
We must receive comments by May 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55: Stabilizer.
This AD was prompted by reports of incorrectly installed bolts common to the rear spar termination fitting of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer attachment and loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011: Do an inspection for a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC” on the identification plates of the left- and right-side horizontal stabilizers, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011.
(1) If a serial number starting with the letters “SAIC” is found on a horizontal stabilizer identification plate: Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, do a detailed inspection for correct bolt protrusion and correct chamfer of the termination fitting bolts of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011. Concurrently with the detailed inspection, inspect to determine if bolts other than part number (P/N) BACB30US14K() or BACB30US16K(), as applicable, are installed. Before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011.
(2) If no SAIC serial number is found, no further action is required by this AD.
For any location where a new bolt having a P/N BACB30US14K() is installed due to damage found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
Where Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date on the service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
Where Figure 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-55-1090, dated March 30, 2011, points to the location of a part number rather than the serial number, this AD requires an inspection for an identification plate with a serial number that starts with the letters “SAIC.”
If, during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, any bolts other than P/N BACB30US14K() or BACB30US16K(), as applicable, are found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6440; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that the automatic de-icing mode became unavailable due to a failure of the timer and monitor unit (TMU). This proposed AD would require replacing the TMU. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of the automatic de-icing mode and consequent increased workload for the flight crew, which, depending on additional failures, could lead to loss of control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-34, dated August 16, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-30-14, dated May 20, 2011. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 81 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher thanestimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,655, 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);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by May 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and subsequent, equipped with Aerazur timer and monitor unit, part number (P/N) 4100S018-06.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and rain protection.
This AD was prompted by reports that the automatic de-icing mode became unavailable due to a failure of the timer and monitor unit (TMU). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of the automatic de-icing mode and consequent increased workload for the flight crew, which, depending on additional failures, could lead to loss of control 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 3,000 flight hours or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace TMU P/N 4100S018-06 with new TMU P/N 4100S018-07, by incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-126525, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-14, dated May 20, 2011.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a TMU, P/N 4100S018-06, on any airplane.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-34, dated August 16, 2011; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-30-14, dated May 20, 2011; for related information.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failures of a hydraulic accumulator's screw-cap/end cap while on the ground that resulted in loss of use of that hydraulic system and in high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structures. This proposed AD would require an inspection for part numbers; repetitive inspections for any cracking of certain hydraulic system accumulators, and replacement, if necessary; and revising the maintenance program to include a life limit for certain hydraulic system accumulators. We are proposing this AD to prevent loss of use of a hydraulic system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-35R1, dated June 28, 2011 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Seven cases of on-ground hydraulic accumulator screw cap/end cap failure have been experienced on CL-600-2B19 aeroplanes resulting in loss of the associated hydraulic system and high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. The lowest number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of failure, to date, has been 6,991 flight cycles.
Although there have been no failures to date on any CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 or CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes, similar accumulators to those installed on the CL-600-2B19, are installed. The part numbers (P/Ns) of the accumulators installed on CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 aeroplanes are 900096-1 (Hydraulic System No. 1 and Hydraulic System No. 2 accumulators), 900097-1 (Hydraulic System No. 3 accumulator) and 08-60204-001 (Inboard Brake and Outboard Brake accumulators).
A detailed analysis of the calculated line of trajectory of a failed screw cap/end cap for each of the accumulators has been conducted, resulting in the identification of
This [Canadian] directive gives instructions to conduct [an inspection to determine if certain hydraulic accumulators are installed and, if necessary,] repetitive ultrasonic inspections [for cracking] of the Hydraulic System No. 1, Hydraulic System No. 2, Hydraulic System No. 3, Inboard Brake and Outboard Brake accumulators, P/Ns 900096-1, 900097-1, and 08-60204-001, that are not identified by the letter “M” or “T” after the S/N [serial number] on the identification plate.
Required actions include revising the maintenance program to include a life limit for certain accumulators, and for airplanes on which cracking is found during an ultrasonic inspection, replacing the accumulator with a new accumulator containing the letter “M” or “T”, as applicable, after the serial number on the identification plate or with a new accumulator with a different part number, and eventual replacement of certain accumulators with new accumulators. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Bombardier has issued the following service information.
• Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-011, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 26, 2010.
• Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-012, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, Revision C, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated October 18, 2007.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-013, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-026, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-014, dated December 22, 2010.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-015, dated December 22, 2010.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-028, dated December 22, 2010.
• Tasks 29-11-11-000-801 and 29-11-11-400-801 of Section 1.3, Safe Life Components, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, CL-600-2E25 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Revision 11, dated October 20, 2010.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are 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 389 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take up to 21 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $8,988 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be up to $4,190,697, or $10,773 per product, per inspection cycle.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 7 work-hours and require parts costing $8,988, for a cost of $9,583 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
We must receive comments by May 4, 2012.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, with serial number (S/N) 10003 through 10314 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, with S/N 15001 through 15259 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29: Hydraulic Power, and 32: Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by reports of failures of a hydraulic accumulator's screw-cap/end cap while on the ground that resulted in loss of use of that hydraulic system and in high-energy impact damage to adjacent systems and structures. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of use of a hydraulic system, which could result in reduced controllability 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.
At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, inspect the hydraulic accumulators in the hydraulic systems No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, and the inboard and outboard brake systems, to determine the part number of the accumulator. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the accumulator can be conclusively determined from that review.
(1) For an accumulator with more than 4,500 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, inspect that accumulator within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For an accumulator with 4,500 or less total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, inspect that accumulator before it has accumulated 5,000 total flight cycles.
(3) If it is not possible to determine the total flight cycles accumulated on an accumulator, inspect that accumulator within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
If, during an inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, an accumulator having P/N 900096-1 (for hydraulic systems No. 1 and No. 2 accumulators), 900097-1 (for hydraulic system No. 3 accumulator), or 08-60204-001 (for inboard and outboard brake accumulators) is found, at the applicable time specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, do an inspection of the identification plate on the hydraulic accumulator to determine if an “M” (for hydraulic system accumulators) or a “T” (for brake system accumulators) follows the serial number on the identification plate. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and the letter of the accumulator can be conclusively determined from that review.
The letter “M” after the serial number on the identification plate is applicable to accumulators, P/Ns 900096-1 and 900097-1, on hydraulic systems No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3. The letter “T” after the serial number on the identification plate is applicable to accumulators, P/N 08-60204-001, on the brake system.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any accumulator without the letter “M” (for hydraulic system accumulators) or a “T” (for brake system accumulators) after the serial number is found, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do an ultrasonic inspection of the inner shoulders of the accumulator screw-cap for cracking, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, and at the internal threads of the screw-caps, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(4), (i)(5), and (i)(6) of this AD.
(1) For hydraulic system No. 1, and hydraulic system No. 2 accumulators: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-011, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 26, 2010.
(2) For hydraulic system No. 3 accumulators: Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-012, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010.
(3) For inboard brake, outboard brake accumulators: Bombardier Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, Revision C, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated October 18, 2007.
(4) For hydraulic system No. 1 accumulators: Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-013, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
(5) For hydraulic system No. 2 accumulators: Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-013, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
(6) For inboard brake, outboard brake accumulators: Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-026, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
If no cracking is found during the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD.
If any cracking is found during the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the accumulator with a new accumulator containing the letter “M” or “T”, as applicable, after the serial number on the identification plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this AD, or replace the accumulator with a new accumulator as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For any cracked hydraulic system No. 1 or No. 2 accumulator, replace the cracked accumulator with a new accumulator, P/N 900121-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-014, dated December 22, 2010.
(2) For any cracked hydraulic system No. 3 accumulator, replace the cracked accumulator with a new accumulator, P/N 900122-1, in accordance with the replacement specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.
(3) For any cracked inboard brake or outboard brake accumulator replaced the cracked accumulator with a new accumulator, P/N 90006691, in accordance with the replacement specified in paragraph (p) of this AD.
For each accumulator on which no cracking was found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, within 500 flight cycles after the previous ultrasonic inspection, inspect the accumulator in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) If no cracking is found, do the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD and repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles.
(2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, replace the accumulator with a new accumulator containing the letter “M” or “T”, as applicable, after the serial number on the identification plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(6) of this AD, or replace the accumulator with a new accumulator as specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
For airplanes on which a hydraulic system No. 1 or No. 2 accumulator having P/N 900096-1 without the letter “M” after the serial number is installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD, replace the accumulator
(1) For an accumulator with more than 19,500 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, replace that accumulator within 500 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent inspection required by paragraph (i) or (l) of this AD.
(2) For an accumulator with 19,500 or less total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, replace that accumulator before it has accumulated 20,000 total flight cycles.
(3) If it is not possible to determine the total flight cycles accumulated on an accumulator, replace that accumulator within 500 flight cycles after accomplishing the most recent ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (i) or (l) of this AD.
Within 60 days after the effective date or this AD, revise the maintenance program to include a safe life limit for the hydraulic system No. 1 and No. 2 accumulators, P/N 900096-1, by incorporating Tasks 29-11-11-000-801 and 29-11-11-400-801 of Section 1.3, Safe Life Components, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, CL-600-2E25 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Revision 11, dated October 20, 2010.
Within 4,000 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace any hydraulic system No. 3 accumulator having P/N 900097-1 with a new accumulator having P/N 900122-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-015, dated December 22, 2010.
Within 4,000 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace any inboard or outboard brake system accumulator having P/N 08-60204-001 with a new accumulator having P/N 90006691, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-028, dated December 22, 2010.
(1) Actions done before the effective date of this AD using Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of the Bombardier service bulletin identified in paragraph (q)(1)(i), (q)(1)(ii), (q)(1)(iii), (q)(1)(iv), or (q)(1)(v) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-011, dated October 18, 2007.
(ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-012, dated March 13, 2008.
(iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, dated November 21, 2006.
(iv) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, Revision A, dated March 7, 2007.
(v) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, Revision B, dated October 18, 2007.
(2) Actions done before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-013, dated January 29, 2010; or 670BA-32-026, dated January 29, 2010; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (m), (n), (o), and (p) of this AD terminates the requirements of this AD for the accumulator at that location only.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-35R1, dated June 28, 2011, and the service information identified in paragraphs (t)(1) through (t)(9) of this AD, for related information.
(1) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-011, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 26, 2010.
(2) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-29-012, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010.
(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin A670BA-32-021, Revision C, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, Revision A, dated October 18, 2007.
(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-013, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
(5) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-026, Revision A, dated July 27, 2010, including Appendix A, dated January 29, 2010.
(6) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-014, dated December 22, 2010.
(7) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-29-015, dated December 22, 2010.
(8) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-028, dated December 22, 2010.
(9) Tasks 29-11-11-000-801 and 29-11-11-400-801 of Section 1.3, Safe Life Components, of Part 2, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, CL-600-2E25 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Revision 11, dated October 20, 2010.
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
By this rule, the Department of Justice is proposing to extend the date for compliance with certain requirements in the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design that relate to provision of accessible entry and exit for existing swimming pools and spas. Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Department is publishing a final rule that extends the compliance date with respect to existing swimming pools, wading pools, and spas to May 21, 2012 in order to allow additional time to address misunderstandings among pool owners and operators regarding these ADA requirements. By this rule, the Department seeks public comment on its proposal to extend the compliance date for a longer period of six months, until September 17, 2012 in the interest of promoting clear and consistent application of the ADA's requirements to existing facilities.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 4, 2012. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN (or Docket No. 123), by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please submit your comments by only one method. Because of the short timeframe for this rulemaking, the Department will not review comments received by means other than those listed above, or that are received after the comment period has closed. While the Department is soliciting comments on the proposed suspension of the applicability of the requirements in the 2010 Standards to swimming pools and spas, we do not with this NPRM seek comments related to the merits of the requirements themselves, which have already been evaluated fully through an earlier, extensive notice and comment process. We will deem any such comments on this NPRM out of scope and will not consider them.
Allison Nichol, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY). This is not a toll-free number. Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).
You are not required to submit personal identifying information in order to comment on this rule. Nevertheless, if you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name and address) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the paragraph above entitled
The reason the Department is requesting electronic comments before Midnight Eastern Time at the end of the day the comment period closes is that the inter-agency Regulations.gov/Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), which receives electronic comments, terminates the public's ability to submit comments at that time. Commenters in time zones other than Eastern may want to take this fact into account so that their electronic comments can be received. The constraints imposed by the Regulations.gov/FDMS system do not apply to U.S. postal comments which, as stated above, will be considered as timely filed if they are postmarked before Midnight on the day the comment period closes.
The Department of Justice published its revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) on September 15, 2010.
With a compliance deadline of March 15, 2012, the 2010 Standards set minimum scoping and technical requirements for accessible entry and exit for new construction and alteration of swimming pools, wading pools, and spas (collectively, “pools”). In addition, the title III regulation provides that as of March 15, 2012, public accommodations' barrier removal efforts must comply with the 2010 Standards to the extent readily achievable, including with respect to barriers to accessing pools. 28 CFR 36.304(d)(2)(iii). The title II regulation provides that the 2010 Standards apply where public entities choose to meet their title II ADA program access obligations by making structural changes to their pools. 28 CFR 35.150(b)(1), (2)(ii).
To help educate pool owners and operators concerning the requirements imposed by the regulations issued by the Department in September 2010, the Civil Rights Division published a technical assistance document entitled “ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Accessible Pools—Means of Entry and Exit” (the “TA Document”), on January 31, 2012. Both the inquiries received by the Department prior to the TA Document's publication and the pool owners and operators' response to the TA Document reveal that there were misunderstandings among a substantial number of pool owners and operators concerning the obligations imposed by the ADA as implemented in the 2010 Final Rule as to their obligations with respect to existing pools and their options with respect to the provision of pool lifts. Some pool owners and
The Department now requests public comment on a proposal to further extend the compliance dates for the title II program accessibility requirements pursuant to 28 CFR 35.150 and the title III barrier removal obligations pursuant to 28 CFR 36.304 as they relate to accessible means of entry into swimming pools, wading pools, and spas in compliance with the 2010 Standards. The proposed extension would run for a period of 180 days from the compliance date specified in the September 2010 Final Rule, namely March 15, 2012. As discussed above, the extension would provide pool owners and operators additional time to evaluate and comply with their program accessibility and readily achievable barrier removal obligations in compliance with sections 242 and 1009 of the 2010 Standards.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation, and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely requests comment on a proposal to further extend the compliance dates for the title II program accessibility requirements pursuant to 28 CFR 35.150 and the title III barrier removal obligations pursuant to 28 CFR 36.304 as they relate to accessible means of entry into swimming pools, wading pools, and spas. The extension would provide regulated entities additional time to evaluate and comply with their program accessibility and readily achievable barrier removal obligations.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Section 4(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1503(2), excludes from coverage under that Act any proposed or final Federal regulation that “establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability.” Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary safety and security zones on the Thames River near New London, CT for OPSAIL 2012 Connecticut (CT) activities. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life and protection of naval vessels on navigable waters during OPSAIL 2012 CT. This action would restrict vessels from entering into, transiting through, mooring or anchoring within the zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound (SLIS).
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 21, 2012.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2011-1029 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 Petty Officer Joseph Graun, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203) 468-4544,
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-2011-1029, 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 April 10, 2012 using one of the four methods specified under
The legal basis for the temporary rule is 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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define safety and security zones.
OPSAIL 2012 CT is a multi-day marine event involving a gathering of naval vessels, and a fireworks display. This proposed rule is necessary to; (1) Protect participating naval vessels from security threats, (2) Protect waterway users from the dangers inherent to fireworks displays.
From Tuesday, July 3, 2012 through Monday, July 9, 2012, Operation Sail, Inc. is sponsoring a naval vessels viewing and a fireworks display as part of the OPSAIL 2012 CT. Participating U.S. and foreign naval vessel will begin arriving in the New London, CT area on July 3, 2012. Upon arrival each vessel will transit up the Thames River to Admiral Shear State Pier where they will stay moored for public viewing until July 9, 2012. On the evening of July 7, 2012 the event organizer will put on an on-water fireworks display for public viewing. The fireworks will be launched from two barges anchored in the Thames River adjacent to New London City Pier.
The gathering of naval vessels is a significant event and creates a potential target for sabotage, subversive acts, or other terrorist activity. For these reasons COTP SLIS has determined it necessary to establish security zones for all naval vessels visiting during OPSAIL 2012 CT. Current regulations established in 33 CFR part 165 subpart G, provide a naval protective zone of 100 yards around each U.S. naval vessel greater than 100 feet in length. This rule purposes to create a security zone in accordance with 33 CFR part 165 subpart G of 100 yards around each U.S. naval vessel 100 feet or less in length and all foreign naval vessels while underway, anchored, or moored while on the navigable waters of the Thames River, CT between the Thames River Railroad Bridge in the Port of New London and New London Ledge light located at the mouth of the Thames River. This rule also proposes to create a security zone around Admiral Shear State Pier including all navigable waters of the Thames River, CT within 100 yards of Admiral Shear State Pier. The specific geographic locations of the regulated areas and specific requirements of this rule are contained in the regulatory text.
Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP SLIS has determined that fireworks launches proximate to watercraft pose significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of increased numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris falling into the water has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This proposed rule would establish a temporary safety zone to restrict vessel movement around the location of the launch platforms to reduce the risk associated with the fireworks display. The launch platforms composed of two barges will be located on the Thames
The Coast Guard anticipates this proposed rule would be effective and enforced from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2012 until 5 p.m. on July 9, 2012. Notice of the safety and security zones, would be provided prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition, the sponsoring organization, Operation Sail, Inc., is planning to publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, internet sites, television and radio broadcasts.
Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety and security zones unless authorized by the COTP SLIS or designated representative. Persons and vessels would be able to request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting the COTP SLIS by telephone at (203) 468-4401, or designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the regulated areas is granted by the COTP SLIS or designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization would be required to comply with the instructions of the COTP SLIS or designated representative.
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.
Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 12866, Regulatory Planning and 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 rule has not been designated a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Coast Guard has determined this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The regulated areas will be of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways; (2) vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the safety and security zones and (3) vessels requiring entry into the safety and security zones may be authorized to do so by the COTP SLIS or designated representative.
Advance public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition, the sponsoring organization, OPSAIL, Inc., is planning to publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, internet sites, television and radio broadcasts.
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 fewer than 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 proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Thames River from July 3-9, 2012. The regulated areas will be of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Vessels would be able to transit the navigable waterways outside of the safety and security zones. Vessels requiring entry into the safety and security zones may be authorized to do so by the COTP or designated representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will make notifications to the public through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. In addition, the sponsoring organization, OPSAIL, Inc., is planning to publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, internet sites, television and radio broadcasts.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 the person listed under
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, and 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. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T01-1029 to read as follows:
(a) The following areas are established as security zones:
(1) 100 yards around all U.S. naval vessels measuring 100 feet or less in length while in the navigable waters of the Thames River, CT between 41°21′46″ N, 072°05′17″ W (Thames River Railroad Bridge in the Port of New London) and 41°18′21.14″ 72°04′38.78″ (New London Ledge light), whether the U.S. naval vessel is underway, anchored, or moored.
(2) 100 yards around all foreign naval vessels in the navigable waters of the Thames River, CT between 41°21′46″ N, 072°05′17″ W (Thames River Railroad Bridge in the Port of New London) and 41°18′21.14″ 72°04′38.78″ (New London Ledge light), whether the foreign naval vessel is underway, anchored, or moored.
(3) All navigable waters surrounding Admiral Shear State Pier shoreward of a boundary line created by connecting the following coordinates. Beginning at position 41°21′37″ N, 072°05′26″ W then to position 41°21′25″ N, 072°05′16″ W then to position 41°21′21″ N, 072°05′24″ W then ending at position 41°21′23″ N, 072°05′26″ W (NAD 83).
(b) The following area is established as a safety zone: All navigable waters within a 1000 foot radius of each fireworks barge located in approximate positions 41°20′57.1″ N, 072°05′22.1″ W and 41°21′03.3″ N, 072°05′24.5″ W (NAD 83).
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP SLIS or designated representative. These designated representatives are comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights or other means the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety or security zones must contact the COTP SLIS by telephone at (203)-468-4401, or designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety or security zones is granted by the COTP SLIS or designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP SLIS or designated representative.
(5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety and security zones, prior to the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Notice will also be provided by on-scene designated representatives.
(1) Naval Vessel Security Zones will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2012 until 5 p.m. on July 9, 2012.
(2) Admiral Shear State Pier Security Zone will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2012 until 5 p.m. on July 9, 2012.
(3) Fireworks Safety Zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 7, 2012. If the fireworks display is postponed, it will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 8, 2012.
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice of public meetings.
Notice is hereby given of three public meetings: two public meetings of the Committee on Regulation and one public meeting of the Committee on Adjudication of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Notice is also given of the cancellation of one public meeting of the Committee on Regulation. At these meetings, the committees will consider draft reports and recommendations.
Committee on Regulation: Wednesday April 4, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and Thursday, May 3, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Please note that the Committee on Regulation's meeting that was previously scheduled to take place on Wednesday, April 18 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. is hereby cancelled. Committee on Adjudication: Thursday April 5, 2012, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meetings will be held at 1120 20th Street NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036.
Reeve T. Bull (Committee on Regulation) or Funmi E. Olorunnipa (Committee on Adjudication), Designated Federal Officers, Administrative Conference of the United States, 1120 20th Street NW., Suite 706 South, Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080; Email
Complete details regarding the committee meetings, the nature of the projects, how to attend (including information about remote access and obtaining special accommodations for persons with disabilities), and how to submit comments to each committee can be found on the Conference's Web site, at
Comments may be submitted by email to
The April 18, 2012 meeting of the Committee on Regulation, which was previously announced in the February 6, 2012
An additional meeting of the Committee on Adjudication has been scheduled for April 5, 2012. This meeting is in addition to the Committee's April 23, 2012 meeting, which will occur as scheduled. At the meeting, the Committee on Adjudication will discuss further a draft report on the Immigration Adjudication Project and a draft recommendation based on the consultants' report. The report, prepared by Professor Lenni B. Benson (New York Law School) and Russell Wheeler (Brookings Institution), presents the findings of a study of potential improvements to the procedures for immigration adjudication. Funmi E. Olorunnipa is the Designated Federal Officer for this committee. More information can be found in the “About” section of the Conference's Web site, at
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces a series of teleconference and/or web conference meetings regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program, which are scheduled to occur during the months of April, August, and November of 2012. This notice also outlines suggested discussion topics for the meetings and is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to participate in the teleconference and/or web conference meetings.
The dates and times for the teleconference and/or web conference meetings will be announced via email to parties registered as described below.
Any member of the public wishing to register for the calls and obtain the call-in number, access code, web link and other information for any of the public teleconferences and/or web conferences may contact Monica Cole, Financial and Loan Analyst, Multifamily Housing Guaranteed Loan Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, telephone: (202) 720-1251, fax: (202) 205-5066, or email:
The objectives of this series of teleconferences are as follows:
• Enhance the effectiveness of the Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program.
• Establish a two-way communications forum to update industry participants and Rural Housing Service (RHS) staff.
• Enhance RHS' awareness of the market and other forces that impact the Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program.
Topics to be discussed could include, but will not be limited to, the following:
• Updates on USDA's Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program activities.
• Perspectives on the current state of debt financing and its impact on the Section 538 program.
• Enhancing the use of Section 538 financing with the transfer and/or preservation of Section 515 developments.
• The impact of Low Income Housing Tax Credits program changes on Section 538 financing.
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). “USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.”
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 4, Annex 4-B, Paragraphs 1-13 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from the United States or Korea have the right to request that a specific fiber, yarn, or fabric be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1.
Section 202(o)(3) of the Act provides that the President may modify the list of fibers, yarns and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1 by determining whether additional fibers, yarns, or fabrics are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, and that the President will issue procedures governing the submission of requests and providing an opportunity for interested entities to submit comments. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). OTEXA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.
CITA must collect information about fiber, yarn or fabric technical specifications and the production capabilities of U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fibers, yarns, or fabrics are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, subject to Section 202(o)(3) of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Department 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 by April 16, 2012 to Wendy Liberante,
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under Section 332(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under Section 332(b) of the Act. CITA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.
CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Korean, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile or apparel industry, subject to section 332(b) of the Act.
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 email at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by April 16, 2012 to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
The purpose of this notice is to advise the public that the National Defense Stockpile Market Impact Committee, co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State, is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the proposed supplement to the Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Materials Plan related to establishing three new material research and development projects. The research and development projects involve three materials—cadmium zinc tellurium (CZT) substrates, trichlorobenzene (TCB), and rhenium alloy. The role of the Market Impact Committee is to advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals involving the stockpile and related material research and development projects. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
To be considered, written comments must be received by April 19, 2012.
Address all comments concerning this notice to Michael Vaccaro, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230, fax: (202) 482-5650 (Attn: Michael Vaccaro), email:
Liam McMenamin, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Telephone: (202) 482-2233.
Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Revision Act of 1979, as amended (the Stock Piling Act) (50 U.S.C. 98,
Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-I) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the “Committee”) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile * * *.” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the U.S. Government against avoidable loss.
The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials stored in or of interest to the National Defense Stockpile Manager.
In Attachment 1, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) lists the quantities of materials associated with three proposed material research and development projects to supplement its FY 2012 Annual Materials Plan. Two of the material research and development projects relate to DLA establishing vendor-owned buffer inventories in the United States for cadmium zinc tellurium (CZT) substrates and trichlorobenzene (TCB) up to the levels enumerated in Attachment 1. In these material research and development projects, DLA would enter into arrangements with vendors to maintain inventories of the two materials with options that DLA could purchase material if needed. In the third material research and development project, DLA would establish a DLA administered material reclamation process project to recycle rhenium alloy which would be re-introduced into the market by the vendor up to the level enumerated in Attachment 1.
The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of the material research and development projects. Public comments are an important element of the Committee's market impact review process.
DLA is required to supplement its FY 2012 Annual Materials Plan to account for the three material research and development projects because DLA will be using the Defense National Stockpile Transaction Fund to pay for the three material research and development projects. The quantities listed in Attachment 1 are not acquisition target quantities, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum quantity of each listed material that may be associated with the three material research and development projects in FY 2012. DLA is not proposing to acquire these materials and add them to the National Defense Stockpile. The quantity of each material that will actually be associated with the three material research and development projects will depend on the market for the materials during the fiscal year as well as on the quantity of each material approved for these material research and development projects by Congress.
The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the quantities associated with the three material research and development projects. All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through email must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line.
The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on April 19, 2012. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law.
The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Notice; annual reporting requirements.
This notice is to remind the public that U.S. firms are required to report annually to the Department of Commerce (Commerce) information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually to Commerce information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative. This year, such reports must include relevant information from calendar year 2011 and must be submitted to Commerce no later than June 15, 2012.
Reports should be addressed to “Offsets Program Manager, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room 3878, Washington, DC 20230.”
Ronald DeMarines, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, telephone: (202) 482-3755; fax: (202) 482-5650; email:
Section 723(a)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (DPA) requires the President to submit an annual report to Congress on the impact of offsets on the U.S. defense industrial base. Section 723(a)(2) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to prepare the President's report and to develop and administer the regulations necessary to collect offsets data from U.S. defense exporters.
The authorities of the Secretary regarding offsets have been delegated to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The regulations associated with offsets reporting are set forth in part 701 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Offsets are compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services, as defined by the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. For example, a company that is selling a fleet of military aircraft to a foreign government may agree to offset the cost of the aircraft by providing training assistance to plant managers in the purchasing country. Although this distorts the true price of the aircraft, the foreign government may require this sort of extra compensation as a condition of awarding the contract to purchase the aircraft. As described in the regulations, U.S. firms are required to report information on contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offsets agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value. U.S. firms are also required to report annually information on offsets transactions completed in performance of existing offsets commitments for which offsets credit of $250,000 or more has been claimed from the foreign representative.
Commerce's annual report to Congress includes an aggregated summary of the data reported by industry in accordance with the offsets regulation and the DPA. As provided by section 723(c) of the DPA, BIS will not publicly disclose individual firm information it receives through offsets reporting unless the firm furnishing the information specifically authorizes public disclosure. The information collected is sorted and organized into an aggregate report of national offsets data, and therefore does not identify company-specific information.
In order to enable BIS to prepare the next annual offset report reflecting calendar year 2011 data, U.S. firms must submit required information on offsets agreements and offsets transactions from calendar year 2011 to BIS no later than June 15, 2012.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. The Department has conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders. As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping as indicated in the “Final Results of Reviews” section of this notice.
Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On December 1, 2011, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain
The Department received a notice of intent to participate in these sunset reviews from the domestic interested parties, Carpenter Technology Corporation, Crucible Industries LLC, Electralloy a G.O. Carlson Inc. Co., Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc., and Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the domestic interested parties), within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).
The Department received a complete substantive response to the
Imports covered by the orders are shipments of stainless steel bar. Stainless steel bar means articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.
Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products (
The stainless steel bars subject to the orders is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.10.00, 7222.11.00, 7222.19.00, 7222.20.00, and 7222.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memo), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Issues and Decision Memo addresses the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System and is accessible on the Import Administration Web site at
The Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
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 May 21, 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 Jason Berthiaume, 978-281-9177, or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Region manages the tilefish fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Northeastern United States, through the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified at 50 CFR part 648 subpart N.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at § 648.294 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS requests information from tilefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) permit holders in order to process applications to ensure that IFQ allocation owners are provided a statement of their annual catch quota, and for enforcement purposes, to ensure vessels are not exceeding an individual quota allocation. In conjunction with the application, NMFS also collects IFQ share accumulation information to ensure that an IFQ limited access privilege holder does not acquire an excessive share of the total limited access privileges, as required by section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS requests transfer application information to process and track requests from allocation holders to transfer quota allocation (permanent and temporary) to another entity. NMFS also collects information for cost recovery purposes as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to collect fees to recover the costs directly related to management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of IFQ programs. Lastly, NMFS collects landings information to ensure that the amounts of tilefish landed and ex-vessel prices are properly recorded for quota monitoring purposes and the calculation of IFQ fees, respectively. Having this information results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.
The IFQ Allocation permit application, IFQ ownership cap form, and the IFQ transfer form are all paper applications. These applications can be filled out online, but must be printed and signed to complete. The IFQ cost recovery process is entirely online at
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 May 21, 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 Walter Ikehara, (808) 944-2275 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Federal regulations at Title 50, Part 665, of the Code of Federal Regulations require that owners of vessels fishing for, or landing, pelagic squid in the western Pacific region obtain a permit from NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition, the regulations require vessel operators to report fishing activity and harvest on daily logbooks and mark their vessels for identification.
The information collected is used to identify participants in the fishery, document fishing activities and landings, determine the conditions of the stocks, assess the effectiveness of management measures, evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and monitor and respond to accidental takes of protected species, including seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals.
Vessel owners must identify their vessels to assist in aerial and at-sea enforcement of fishing regulations.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
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 May 21, 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 Jason Berthiaume, 978-281-9177, or
This request is for extension of a current information collection.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Region manages the tilefish fishery of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Northeastern United States, through the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified at 50 CFR part 648 subpart N.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at § 648.294 form the basis for this collection of information. NMFS requests information from tilefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) permit holders in order to process applications to ensure that IFQ allocation owners are provided a statement of their annual catch quota, and for enforcement purposes, to ensure vessels are not exceeding an individual quota allocation. In conjunction with the application, NMFS also collects IFQ share accumulation information to ensure that an IFQ limited access privilege holder does not acquire an excessive share of the total limited access privileges, as required by section 303A(c)(5)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS requests transfer application information to process and track requests from allocation holders to transfer quota allocation (permanent and temporary) to another entity. NMFS also collects information for cost recovery purposes as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to collect fees to recover the costs directly related to management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement of IFQ programs. Lastly, NMFS collects landings information to ensure that the amounts of tilefish landed and ex-vessel prices are properly recorded for quota monitoring purposes and the calculation of IFQ fees, respectively. Having this information results in an increasingly more efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.
The IFQ Allocation permit application, IFQ ownership cap form, and the IFQ transfer form are all paper applications. These applications can be filled out online, but must be printed and signed to complete. The IFQ cost recovery process is entirely online at
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; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Oversight Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hotel Providence, 139 Mathewson Street, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: (401) 861-8000; fax: (401) 454-4306.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will begin developing specific measures for Framework 24. This action is primarily setting specifications for fishing years 2013 and 2014. At this meeting the Committee will primarily work on other measures that will be considered in this action in addition to specifications. Specifically, (1) possible modification of Georges Bank access area opening dates; (2) consider measures to address sub-ACL of yellowtail flounder for the LAGC trawl fishery; (3) consider modifying the effective date of YT sub-ACL AMs from Year 2 to Year 3; (4) leasing LAGC IFQ mid-year; and 5) expanding the observer set-aside program to include LAGC open area trips. The Committee will make recommendations for research priorities for the 2013 and 2014 Research Set-Aside program. If time permits, the Committee may review and provide input on a draft outline for a Performance Evaluation of the LAGC IFQ program to date. In addition, there will be a presentation from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) on future plans for the federal scallop survey and how results will be integrated with existing survey methods. The Committee may discuss other business.
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 Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The ONMS is seeking applications for the following vacant seats on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council: Native Hawaiian Representative, Ocean Related Tourism Representative, Conservation Alternate, Native Hawaiian (Elder) Alternate, and two Native Hawaiian Alternates. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; and philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine and cultural resources. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 2 year terms, pursuant to the council's charter, or until a Monument Alliance is formed in compliance with the Federal Advisory Council Act (FACA).
Applications are due by April 30, 2012.
Application kits may be obtained from Wesley Byers, Reserve Advisory Council Coordinator, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Pacific Island Region, 6600 Kalaniana'ole Hwy, #300, Honolulu, HI 96825, and at the following link:
Wesley Byers, Reserve Advisory Council Coordinator, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Pacific Island Region, 6600
The NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve is a marine protected area designed to conserve and protect the coral reef ecosystem and related natural and cultural resources of the area. The NWHI Reserve was established by Executive Order 13178 (12/00) and Executive Order 13196 (1/01) pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000 (Pub. L.106-513). The Reserve was incorporated into Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument when the Monument was established in 2006 and is now also part of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument World Heritage site established by UNESCO in July, 2010.
The Reserve encompasses an area of the marine waters and submerged lands of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, extending approximately 1200 nautical miles long and 100 nautical miles wide. The Reserve is managed by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Executive Orders. The management principles and implementation strategy and requirements for the Reserve are found in the enabling Executive Orders, which are part of the application kit, and can be found on the Monument's Web site
In designating the Reserve, the Secretary of Commerce was directed to establish a Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council, pursuant to section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, to provide advice and recommendations on the management of the natural and cultural resources within the Reserve.
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries has established the Reserve Advisory Council and is now accepting applications from interested individuals for Representatives and/or Alternates for each of the following citizen/constituent positions on the Council:
1. One (1) Native Hawaiian Representatives (Native Hawaiian).
2. One (1) Ocean-Related Tourism Representative (Ocean-Related Tourism).
3. One (1) Native Hawaiian (Elder) Alternate (Native Hawaiian)
3. Two (2) Native Hawaiian Alternates (Native Hawaiian).
4. One (1) Conservation Alternate (Conservation).
Current Reserve Council Representatives and Alternates may reapply for these vacant seats.
The Council consists of 25 members, 15 of which are non-government voting members (the State of Hawai'i representative is a voting member) and 10 of which are government non-voting members. The voting members are representatives of the following constituencies: Conservation (2), Citizen-At-Large, Ocean-Related Tourism, Recreational Fishing, Research (3), Commercial Fishing, Education, State of Hawai'i and Native Hawaiian (3). The government non-voting seats are represented by the following agencies: Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Marine Mammal Commission, NOAA's Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, National Science Foundation, U.S. Coast Guard, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, and NOAA's Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The ONMS is seeking applications for the following vacant seats on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Recreational Fishing member and alternate, Tourism member and alternate, Education member and alternate, Chumash member and alternate, Public at large alternates (2), and Business alternate. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve two-year terms, pursuant to the council's charter.
Applications are due by April 20, 2012.
Application kits may be obtained from
Mike Murray,
The CINMS Advisory Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the Office National Marine Sanctuaries. Specifically, the Council's objectives are to provide advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources; (2) Identifying and realizing the Sanctuary's research objectives; (3) Identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and (4) Assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.
16 U.S.C. Sections 1431,
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of its Senior Corps Grant Application (424-NSSC)—reference OMB Control Number 3045-0035, with an expiration date of May 31, 2014. The Corporation proposes to renew the Senior Corps Grant Application with the following modifications:
• To modify Grant Application Instructions to align with upcoming standard performance measure requirements.
• To separate the currently combined Grant Application Instructions by program, with a set of instructions specifically for the RSVP program and a set of instructions for the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs.
• To incorporate technical corrections and enhancements, including simplifying language, establishing page limits, requiring extended zip code (zip plus four), and others.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1)
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3)
(4) Electronically through
Angela Roberts by email at
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected 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 submissions of responses).
The Senior Corps Grant Application is completed by applicant organizations interested in sponsoring a Senior Corps program. The application is also used by existing grantees to apply for continuation year grants (annual submissions in years two and three of a three year grant). The application is completed electronically using the Corporation's web-based grants management system, eGrants.
The Corporation seeks to renew the current application with modifications. The modifications are: to modify Grant Application Instructions to align with upcoming standard performance measure requirements; separate the currently combined Grant Application Instructions by program, with a set of instructions specifically for the RSVP program and a set of instructions for the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs; and incorporate technical corrections and enhancements, including simplifying language, establishing page limits, requiring extended zip code (zip plus four), and others.
The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice of Meeting Cancellation of the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended),
Due to changing requirements beyond the control of the Air University Board of Visitors or its Designated Federal Officer, the Committee was unable to process the amended
Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the Air University Board of Visitors should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions with the Air University Board of Visitors' Board Chairperson and ensure they are provided to members of the Board before the next meeting.
Mrs. Diana Bunch, Designated Federal Officer, Air University Headquarters, 55 LeMay Plaza South, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, telephone (334) 953-4547.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-598, Self Certification for Entities Seeking Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by April 19, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0166, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-3-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
EPAct 2005 repealed the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935 in its entirety, including section 32. This repeal enabled the Commission to exempt wholesale generators from PUHCA 1935 on a case-by-case basis. The Commission amended its regulations (in Order No. 667
An EWG is a “person engaged directly, or indirectly through one or more affiliates * * * and exclusively in the business of owning or operating, or both owning and operating, all or part of one or more eligible facilities and selling electric energy at wholesale.”
An exempt EWG or FUCO or its representative may file with the Commission a notice of self certification demonstrating that it satisfies the definition of exempt wholesale generator or foreign utility company. In the case of EWGs, the person filing a notice of self certification must also file a copy of the notice of self certification with the state regulatory authority of the state in which the facility is located and that person must also represent to the Commission in its submission that it has filed a copy of the notice with the appropriate state regulatory authority.
A submission of the information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under EPAct 2005.
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $41,890 [612 hours ÷ 2080
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the information collection FERC-716, Self Certification for Entities Seeking Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign Utility Company Status, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by April 19, 2012.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0170, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. IC12-4-000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
The Commission's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 18 CFR 2.20, provide standards by which the Commission determines if and when a valid good faith request for transmission has been made under section 211 of the FPA. By developing the standards, the Commission sought to encourage an open exchange of data with a reasonable degree of specificity and completeness between the party requesting transmission services and the transmitting utility. As a result, 18 CFR 2.20 identifies 12 components of a good faith estimate and 5 components of a reply to a good faith request.
The
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 7, 2012. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC provided public notice of its request on February 3, 2012. In a letter dated March 14, 2012, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. Register online at
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIX, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 7, 2012. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIX, LLC provided public notice of its request on February 3, 2012. In a letter dated March 14, 2012, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIX, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and (b) the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIX, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXIX, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. Register online at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on March 12, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting that the Commission find that: (1) PJM does not have responsibility under its tariffs to oversee worker safety in maintenance operations performed by employees of the Transmission Owners (TOs), and (2) the bar to ordinary negligence claims set forth in PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff applies when PJM executes its Regional Transmission Organization functions of planning for future grid reliability and approving the request by one of its member TOs to schedule an outage of the TO's transmission facility.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On November 30, 2011, INCA Engineers, Inc., Washington, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Cortez Pumped Storage Project to be located on Plateau Creek, near the town of Dolores, Montezuma County, Colorado. The project affects federal lands administered by the Forest Service (San Juan National Forest). The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following new facilities: (1) An upper reservoir, formed by a 130-foot-high by 6,500-foot-long, roller-compacted concrete (RCC) dam, with a total storage capacity of 8,000 acre-feet and a water surface area of 275 acres at full pool elevation; (2) a lower reservoir, formed by a 270-foot-high by 800-foot-long dam, having a total storage capacity of 9,500 acre-feet and a water surface area of 200 acres at full pool elevation; (3) two 15-foot-diameter steel consisting of a surface penstock, a vertical shaft and an inclined tunnel; (4) two 27-foot-diameter tailrace tunnels that would be 850-feet-long; (5) an underground powerhouse containing two reversible pump-turbines totaling 500 megawatts (MW) (2 units × 250 MW units) of generating capacity; and (6) a 7-mile-long, 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line that would connect from the switchyard with an existing 230 kV interconnection east of the project area. The project's annual energy output would vary between 600 and 1,500 gigawatthours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On December 16, 2011, Mayville Pumped Storage, LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project located on the Ohio River in Mason County, Kentucky. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of two alternatives:
Alternative A would consist of: (1) An intake structure on the Ohio River and a 24-inch-diameter, 8,000-foot-long pipeline to supply water to the upper reservoir; (2) a 260-foot-high, 1,360-foot-long roller-compacted concrete upper dam; (3) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 126.0 acre and a storage capacity of 9,970 acre-feet; (4) a 27-foot-diameter, 500-foot-long concrete-lined headrace; (5) a 27-foot-diameter, 1,320-foot-long concrete-lined pressure shaft; (6) a powerhouse/pumping station containing four pump/generating units with a total capacity of 1,000.0 megawatts (MW); (7) a 32-foot-diameter, 2,730-foot-long concrete-lined tailrace; (8) a lower reservoir created within excavated underground mine space with a surface area of 212 acres and a storage capacity of 9,540 acre-feet; and (9) a 6-mile-long, 345 kilo-volt (KV) transmission line. The project would have an estimated average annual
Alternative B would consist of: (1) An intake structure on the Ohio River and a 24-inch-diameter, 4,100-foot-long pipeline to supply water to the upper reservoir; (2) a 260-foot-high, 1,540-foot-long roller-compacted concrete upper dam; (3) an upper reservoir with a surface area of 138 acres and a storage capacity of 11,900 acre-feet; (4) a 29-foot-diameter, 5,000-foot-long concrete-lined headrace; (5) a 29-foot-diameter, 885-foot-long concrete-lined pressure shaft; (6) a powerhouse/pumping station containing four pump/generating units with a total capacity of 1,000.0 megawatts (MW); (7) a 35-foot-diameter, 2,000-foot-long concrete-lined tailrace; (8) a lower reservoir created within excavated underground mine space with a surface area of 266 acres and a storage capacity of 12,000 acre-feet; and (9) a 2.5-mile-long, 345 kilo-volt (KV) transmission line. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of 2,190,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) and the project power would be sold.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On December 20, 2011, Spartanburg Water System (Spartanburg) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project located on the Pacolet River in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 70.0-foot-high, 700-foot-long roller-compacted concrete dam, owned by Spartanburg; (2) a reservoir with a surface area of 1,050.0 acres and a storage capacity of 23,000 acre-feet; (3) a 8.0-foot-diameter steel penstock installed in the existing outlet conduit; (4) an 8-foot-diameter butterfly valve located at the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse containing one generating unit with a total capacity of 1,600.0 kilowatts (kW), discharging directly into the dam's existing tailrace; (6) a 1,100-foot-long, 4.16 kilo-volt (KV) transmission line to; (7) a proposed substation; and (8) a 100-foot-long, 12 KV transmission line to the point of interconnection. The project would have an estimated average annual generation of 7,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) and the project power would be sold.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP):
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: AEP Offices, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 72501.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. ER09-35-001,
Docket No. ER09-36-001,
Docket No. ER09-36-002,
Docket No. ER09-548-001,
Docket No. ER11-4105-000,
Docket No. EL11-34-001,
Docket No. ER11-3967-002,
Docket No. ER11-3967-003,
Docket No. ER12-1179-000,
For more information, contact Luciano Lima, Office of Energy Markets
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6210 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):
March 16, 2012, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Local Time.
The above-referenced meeting will be held over conference call only.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
Docket No. EL05-121,
Docket No. ER06-456, ER06-954, ER06-1271, ER07-424, ER06-880, EL07-57, ER07-1186, ER08-229, ER08-1065, ER09-497, and ER10-268,
Docket No. ER10-253 and EL10-14,
Docket No. EL10-52,
Docket No. ER11-4070
Docket No. ER11-2875 and EL11-20,
Docket No. ER09-1256,
Docket No. ER09-1589,
Docket No. EL11-56,
Docket No. ER11-1844,
Docket No. EL12-10,
Docket No. ER12-718,
Docket No. EL12-1177,
Docket No. EL12-1178,
For more information, contact Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6604 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
Further information may be found at
The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5936 or
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 21, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0163, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Kristen Fitzgerald, (mail code 5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8286; fax number: 703-308-8827; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0163, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 4, 2012.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 13, 2012.
1.
10 a.m. (Eastern Time), March 26, 2012.
10th Floor Conference Room,77 K Street NE., Suite 1000,Washington, DC 20002.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
1. Approval of the Minutes of the February 27, 2012 Board Member Meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan Activity Report by the Executive Director:
a. Monthly Participant Activity Report.
b. Investment Performance Report.
c. Legislative Report.
3. Predecisional Matters.
Kimberly A. Weaver, Director,Office of External Affairs,(202) 942-1640.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robin Thurston (202-326-2752), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 14, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2012. Write “Billion Auto, File No. 112 3209” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to
If you file your comment on paper, write “Billion Auto, File No. 112 3209” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Billion Auto, Inc. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. The matter involves its advertising of the purchase, financing, and leasing of its motor vehicles. According to the FTC complaint, respondent has represented that when a consumer trades in a used vehicle in order to purchase another vehicle, respondent will pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. The complaint alleges that in fact, when a consumer trades in a used vehicle with negative equity (
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting that it will pay the remaining loan balance on a consumer's trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no obligation for any amount of that loan. It also prohibits misrepresenting any other material fact relating to the financing or leasing of a motor vehicle.
Part II of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegations. It requires clear and conspicuous TILA/Regulation Z disclosures when advertising any of the relevant triggering terms with regard to issuing consumer credit. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part II prohibits any other violation of TILA or Regulation Z.
Part III of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegation. It requires that the respondent clearly and conspicuously make all of the disclosures required by CLA and Regulation M if it states relevant triggering terms, including the monthly lease payment. In addition, Part III prohibits any other violation of CLA and Regulation M.
Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification of the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robin Thurston (202-326-2752), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2012. Write “Ramey Motors, File No. 112 3207” on your comment. Your comment B—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Ramey Motors, File No. 112 3207” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“AFTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Ramey Motors, Inc. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. The matter involves its advertising of the purchase and financing of its motor vehicles. According to the FTC complaint, respondent has represented that when a consumer trades in a used vehicle in order to purchase another vehicle, respondent will pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. The complaint alleges that in fact, when a consumer trades in a used vehicle with negative equity (i.e. the loan balance on the vehicle exceeds the vehicle's value) in order to purchase another vehicle, respondent does not pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. Instead, the respondent includes the amount of the negative equity in the loan for the newly purchased vehicle. The complaint alleges therefore that the representation is false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z for failing to disclose certain costs and terms when advertising credit.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting that it will pay the remaining loan balance on a consumer's trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no obligation for any amount of that loan. It also prohibits misrepresenting any other material fact relating to the financing or leasing of a motor vehicle.
Part II of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegations. It requires clear and conspicuous TILA/Regulation Z disclosures when advertising any of the relevant triggering terms with regard to issuing consumer credit. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part II prohibits any other violation of TILA or Regulation Z.
Part III of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robin Thurston (202-326-2752), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 14, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2012. Write “Frank Myers AutoMaxx, File No. 112 3206” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Frank Myers Automaxx, File No. 112 3206” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a
The respondent is a motor vehicle dealer. The matter involves its advertising of the purchase, financing, and leasing of its motor vehicles. According to the FTC complaint, respondent has represented that when a consumer trades in a used vehicle in order to purchase another vehicle, respondent will pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. The complaint alleges that in fact, when a consumer trades in a used vehicle with negative equity (i.e. the loan balance on the vehicle exceeds the vehicle's value) in order to purchase another vehicle, respondent does not pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. Instead, the respondent may require the consumer to pay for the negative equity in cash at the time of sale. The complaint alleges therefore that the representation is false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondent from misrepresenting that it will pay the remaining loan balance on a consumer's trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no obligation for any amount of that loan. It also prohibits misrepresenting any other material fact relating to the financing or leasing of a motor vehicle.
Part II of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part III requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part IV requires notification of the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part V requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VI is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Robin Thurston (202-326-2752), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 14, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2012. Write “Key Hyundai, File No. 112 3204” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Key Hyundai, File No. 112 3204” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Key Hyundai of Manchester, LLC, and Hyundai of Milford, LLC. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the FTC will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The respondents are motor vehicle dealers. The matter involves their advertising of the purchase, financing, and leasing of their motor vehicles. According to the FTC complaint, respondents have represented that when a consumer trades in a used vehicle in order to purchase another vehicle, respondents will pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. The complaint alleges that in fact, when a consumer trades in a used vehicle with negative equity (i.e. the loan balance on the vehicle exceeds the vehicle's value) in order to purchase another vehicle, respondents do not pay off the balance of the loan on the trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no remaining obligation for any amount of that loan. Instead, the respondents include the amount of the negative equity in the loan for the newly purchased vehicle. The complaint alleges therefore that the representation is false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and Regulation Z for failing to disclose certain costs and terms when advertising credit. The complaint also alleges a violation of the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”) and Regulation M for failing to disclose the costs and terms of certain leases offered.
The proposed order is designed to prevent the respondent from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from misrepresenting that they will pay the remaining loan balance on a consumer's trade-in vehicle such that the consumer will have no obligation for any amount of that loan. It also prohibits misrepresenting any other material fact relating to the financing or leasing of a motor vehicle.
Part II of the proposed order addresses the TILA allegations. It requires clear and conspicuous TILA/Regulation Z disclosures when advertising any of the relevant triggering terms with regard to issuing consumer credit. It also requires that if any finance charge is advertised, the rate be stated as an “annual percentage rate” using that term or the abbreviation “APR.” In addition, Part II prohibits any other violation of TILA or Regulation Z.
Part III of the proposed order addresses the CLA allegation. It requires that the respondents clearly and conspicuously make all of the disclosures required by CLA and Regulation M if it states relevant triggering terms, including the monthly lease payment. In addition, Part III prohibits any other violation of CLA and Regulation M.
Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements. Part V requires that respondent provide copies of the order to certain of its personnel. Part VI requires notification of the Commission regarding changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order. Part VII requires the respondent to file compliance reports with the Commission. Finally, Part VIII is a provision “sunsetting” the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, HHS.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) is announcing the launch of the 2012 ASPR Challenge titled
Important dates for this Challenge are:
Diana Boss, MPH, Public Health Analyst, Fusion Cell, OPEO, ASPR, HHS.
Entrants are asked to develop a Web-based application that can ingest open source Twitter data for a specified geographic area, count the frequency of common illness related terms based on a provided common disease term taxonomy, and produce a top five list of trending illnesses for the previous twenty-four hour period. The daily top five list would be automatically delivered daily to public health practitioners at health departments via a Web-based widget. The resulting information will then be available to health departments to use in a variety of ways including building a baseline of trend data, engaging the public on trending health topics, serving as an indicator of potential health issues emerging in the population, or cross-referencing other data sources.
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity—
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by ASPR;
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section;
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States;
(4) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment;
(5) Shall not be an HHS employee working on their applications or submissions during assigned work hours;
(6) Shall not be an employee of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response;
(7) Federal grantees may not use Federal funds to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award;
(8) Federal contractors may not use Federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
This Challenge is open to any Contestant, defined as (1) an individual or team of U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States who are 18 years of age and over, or (2) an entity incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the United States. Foreign citizens can participate as employees of an entity that is properly incorporated in the U.S. and maintains a primary place of business in the U.S. Contestants may submit more than one entry, e.g., if they have developed more than one tool.
Any individual or team that supplies false information, enters the challenge by fraudulent means, or is otherwise determined to be in violation of the eligibility criteria or terms of the challenge shall be ineligible for any prize and shall be required to forfeit and prize obtained based on such information or means.
Eligibility for a prize award is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements set forth herein. ASPR will not select as a Winner an individual or entity that is currently on the Excluded Parties List (
By participating in this competition, participants agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from participation in this prize contest, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
By participating in this competition, participants agree to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damage arising from or related to competition activities.
Based on the subject matter of the contest, the type of work that it will possibly require, as well as an analysis of the likelihood of any claims for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss potentially resulting from contest participation, Contestants are not required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this contest.
Upon submission, each Contestant warrants that he or she is the sole author and owner of the submission; that the submission is wholly original with the Contestant (or is an improved version of an existing tool that the Contestant has sufficient rights to use); and that it does not infringe any copyright or any other rights of any third party of which Contestant is aware. Each Contestant also warrants that their submission is free of malware. Each Contestant also warrants that he or she has complied with the Twitter API Guidelines and Terms listed on the following Web site:
By participating in this contest, each Contestant grants to ASPR an irrevocable, paid-up, royalty-free nonexclusive worldwide license to post, link to, share, and display publicly the submission on the Web, for the purpose of the Challenge, during the duration of the Challenge, and for a period of two years following announcement of the winners. Contestants with winning submissions also grant to ASPR an irrevocable, paid-up, royalty-free nonexclusive worldwide license to use winning submissions and distribute them to the public to enhance situational awareness and response to health threats for a period of two years following announcement of the winners. All Contestants will retain all other intellectual property rights in their submissions. For example, during the two-year period referenced above, contestants retain the right to utilize and modify their submissions as desired and to provide licenses (paid or un-paid) to other entities. Thereafter, the nonexclusive license will expire, and contestants could grant an exclusive license if they so desired.
Interested persons that meet the eligibility criteria above should register at
At the culmination of the submission period, all submitted entries will be reviewed for eligibility criteria. Those entries that are found to be eligible will be reviewed by a judging panel for determination of one grand prize submission. The grand prize submission will be awarded $21,000.00. If a team wins the prize, the prize money will be divided evenly among all team members. The winning entry will also receive $1,000 to apply towards travel to Washington, DC for the announcement of the winner.
Prizes awarded under this competition will be paid by electronic funds transfer and may be subject to Federal income taxes. Any Federal, state, and, local taxes, and all similar fees and assessments, are the sole responsibility of the prize recipients. HHS will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
All submissions that satisfy eligibility criteria will be judged by an expert panel composed of ASPR staff. The expert panel may also include and/or consult with Federal employees from other HHS components and Federal agencies, State and Local public health representatives, and/or external members of the health information technology community in compliance with the requirements of the America COMPETES Act. Judges may be named after commencement of the challenge. The judging panel will make selections based upon the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Submissions should include a title; a description of the submission in the form of a document (5 page maximum) or a slide presentation (10 slide maximum); a Web address for the technology; instructions on how to operate the tool; and system requirements required to run the tool. Pictures and video are optional but helpful.
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Finalists and the Challenge Winners must comply with all terms and conditions of these Official Rules and winning is contingent upon fulfilling all requirements contained herein. Awards may be subject to Federal income taxes, and the Department of Health and Human Services will comply with the Internal Revenue Service withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable. Winners will be notified by email, telephone, or mail after the date of the judging.
If contestants choose to provide ASPR with personal information by registering or filling out the submission form through the challenge Web site, that information is used to respond to contestants in matters regarding their submission; announcements of entrants, finalists, and winners of the Challenge; and in relation to promotion of the Challenge. Information is not collected for commercial marketing.
Winners are permitted to cite that they won this contest.
ASPR reserves the right to cancel, suspend, and/or modify the Competition, or any part of it, for any reason, at ASPR's sole discretion.
Participation in this Challenge constitutes a contestant's full and unconditional agreement to abide by the Challenge's Official Rules found at
15 U.S.C. 3719.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has been renewed for a 2-year period through February 1, 2014.
For information, contact Carmen Villar, M.S.W., Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, HHS, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D-14, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-7000 or fax 404/639-7111.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Online Registration Required: All ACBCYW attendees must register for the meeting online in advance at
Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 5770 Buford Hwy, NE., Mailstop K52, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4518, Fax (770) 488-4760, Email:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either written or electronic comments on the collection of information by May 21, 2012.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 355, and 371) require that marketed drugs be safe and effective. In order to know whether drugs that are not safe and effective are on the market, FDA must be promptly informed of adverse experiences occasioned by the use of marketed drugs. In order to help ensure this, FDA issued regulations at §§ 310.305 and 314.80 (21 CFR 310.305 and 314.80) to impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements on the drug industry that would enable FDA to take the action necessary to protect the public health from adverse drug experiences.
All applicants who have received marketing approval of drug products are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences, as well as followup reports when needed (§ 314.80(c)(1)). This includes reports of all foreign or domestic adverse experiences as well as those based on information from applicable scientific literature and certain reports from postmarketing studies. Section 314.80(c)(1)(iii) pertains to such reports submitted by nonapplicants. Under § 314.80(c)(2) applicants must provide periodic reports of adverse drug experiences. A periodic report includes, for the reporting interval, reports of serious, expected adverse drug experiences and all nonserious adverse drug experiences and an index of these reports, a narrative summary and analysis of adverse drug experiences, and a history of actions taken because of adverse drug experiences. Under § 314.80(i), applicants must keep for 10 years records of all adverse drug experience reports known to the applicant.
For marketed prescription drug products without approved new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications, manufacturers, packers, and distributors are required to report to FDA serious, unexpected adverse drug experiences as well as followup reports when needed (§ 310.305(c)). Section 310.305(c)(5) pertains to the submission of followup reports to reports forwarded by FDA. Under § 310.305(f), each manufacturer, packer, and distributor shall maintain for 10 years records of all adverse drug experiences required to be reported.
The primary purpose of FDA's adverse drug experience reporting system is to provide a signal for potentially serious safety problems with marketed drugs. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a new drug's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the marketed drug provide the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Signals are obtained from a variety of sources, including reports from patients, treating physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the adverse drug experience reporting system contributes directly to increased public health protection because the information enables FDA to make important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning), decisions about risk evaluation and mitigation strategies or the need for postmarket studies or clinical trials, and when necessary, to initiate removal of a drug from the market.
Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers, packers, distributors, and applicants. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
These estimates are based on FDA's knowledge of adverse drug experience reporting, including the time needed to prepare the reports, and the number of reports submitted to the Agency.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 19, 2012.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA's final rule entitled “Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products” (the final rule), which published on January 24, 2006 (71 FR 3922), and was effective on June 30, 2006, amended FDA's regulations governing the format and content of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products to require that the labeling of new and recently approved products contain highlights of prescribing information, a table of contents for prescribing information, reordering of certain sections, minor content changes, and minimum graphical requirements. These revisions were intended to make it easier for health care practitioners to access, read, and use information in prescription drug labeling; to enhance the safe and effective use of prescription drug products; and to reduce the number of adverse reactions resulting from medication errors due to misunderstood or incorrectly applied drug information.
Section 201.56 (21 CFR 201.56) requires that prescription drug labeling contain certain information in the format specified in either § 201.57 (21 CFR 201.57) or § 201.80 (21 CFR 201.80), depending on when the drug was approved for marketing. Section 201.56(a) sets forth general labeling requirements applicable to all prescription drugs. Section 201.56(b) specifies the categories of new and more recently approved prescription drugs subject to the revised content and format requirements in §§ 201.56(d) and 201.57. Section 201.56(c) sets forth the schedule for implementing these revised content and format requirements. Section 201.56(e) specifies the sections and subsections, required and optional, for the labeling of older prescription drugs not subject to the revised format and content requirements.
Section 201.57(a) requires that prescription drug labeling for new and more recently approved prescription drug products include “Highlights of
Older drugs not subject to the revised labeling content and format requirements in § 201.57 remain subject to labeling requirements at § 201.80 (in the final rule, former § 201.57 was redesignated as § 201.80). Section 201.80(f)(2) requires that within 1 year, any FDA-approved patient labeling be referenced in the “Precautions” section of the labeling of older products and either accompany or be reprinted immediately following the labeling.
The PRA information collection analysis in the final rule (71 FR 3964-3967) (currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0572) estimated the reporting burden for a multiyear period. We are requesting that OMB extend approval for the information in this collection, as described below that will continue to be submitted to FDA during this multiyear period.
New drug product applicants must: (1) Design and create prescription drug labeling containing Highlights, Contents, and FPI, (2) test the designed labeling (e.g., to ensure that the designed labeling fits into carton-enclosed products), and (3) submit it to FDA for approval. Based on the projected data estimated in the final rule, FDA estimates that it takes applicants approximately 3,349 hours to design, test, and submit prescription drug labeling to FDA as part of an NDA or a BLA under the revised regulations. Approximately 84 applicants submit approximately 105 new applications (NDAs and BLAs) to FDA per year, totaling 351,645 hours.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 21, 2012.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection approval request is for FDA guidance on the procedures for formal meetings between FDA and sponsors or applicants regarding the development and review of PDUFA products. The guidance describes procedures for requesting, scheduling, conducting, and documenting such formal meetings. The guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply section 119(a) of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), specific PDUFA goals for the management of meetings associated with the review of human drug applications for PDUFA products, and provisions of existing regulations describing certain meetings (§§ 312.47 and 312.82 (21 CFR 312.47 and 312.82)).
The guidance describes two collections of information: The submission of a meeting request containing certain information and the submission of an information package in advance of the formal meeting. Agency regulations at §§ 312.47(b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iv), and (b)(2) describe information that should be submitted in support of a request for an End-of-Phase 2 meeting and a Pre-NDA meeting. The information collection provisions of § 312.47 have been approved by OMB (OMB control number 0910-0014). However, the guidance provides additional recommendations for submitting information to FDA in support of a meeting request. As a result, FDA is submitting additional estimates for OMB approval.
Under the guidance, a sponsor or applicant interested in meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) should submit a meeting request to the appropriate FDA component as an amendment to the underlying application. FDA regulations (§§ 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2 (21 CFR 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2)) state that information provided to the Agency as part of an Investigational New Drug Application (IND), New Drug Application (NDA), or Biological License Application (BLA) must be submitted with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany submissions under INDs and Form FDA 356h must accompany submissions under NDAs and BLAs. Both forms have valid OMB control numbers as follows: FDA Form 1571—OMB control number 0910-0014 and FDA Form 356h—OMB control number 0910-0338.
In the guidance document, CDER and CBER ask that a request for a formal meeting be submitted as an amendment to the application for the underlying product under the requirements of §§ 312.23, 314.50, and 601.2; therefore, requests should be submitted to the Agency with the appropriate form attached, either Form FDA 1571 or Form FDA 356h. The Agency recommends that a request be submitted in this manner for two reasons: (1) To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire underlying application and (2) to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the Agency's tracking databases enables the Agency to monitor progress on the activities attendant to scheduling and holding a formal meeting and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.
Under the guidance, the Agency requests that sponsors and applicants include in meeting requests certain information about the proposed meeting. Such information includes:
• Information identifying and describing the product;
• The type of meeting being requested;
• A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting;
• A list of objectives and expected outcomes from the meeting;
• A preliminary proposed agenda;
• A draft list of questions to be raised at the meeting;
• A list of individuals who will represent the sponsor or applicant at the meeting;
• A list of Agency staff requested to be in attendance;
• The approximate date that the information package will be sent to the Agency; and
• Suggested dates and times for the meeting.
This information will be used by the Agency to determine the utility of the meeting, to identify Agency staff necessary to discuss proposed agenda items, and to schedule the meeting.
A sponsor or applicant submitting an information package to the Agency in advance of a formal meeting should provide summary information relevant to the product and supplementary information pertaining to any issue raised by the sponsor, applicant, or Agency. The Agency recommends that information packages generally include:
• Identifying information about the underlying product;
• A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting;
• A list of objectives and expected outcomes of the meeting;
• A proposed agenda for the meeting;
• A list of specific questions to be addressed at the meeting;
• A summary of clinical data that will be discussed (as appropriate);
• A summary of preclinical data that will be discussed (as appropriate); and
• Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information that may be discussed (as appropriate).
The purpose of the information package is to provide Agency staff the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the review of relevant data concerning the product. Although FDA reviews similar information in the meeting request, the information package should provide updated data that reflect the most current and accurate information available to the sponsor or applicant. The Agency finds that reviewing such information is critical to achieving a productive meeting.
The collection of information described in the guidance reflects the current and past practice of sponsors and applicants to submit meeting requests as amendments to INDs, NDAs, and BLAs and to submit background information prior to a scheduled meeting. Agency regulations currently permit such requests and recommend the submission of an information package before an End-of-Phase 2 meeting (§§ 312.47(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(iv)) and a Pre-NDA meeting (§ 312.47(b)(2)).
1. Description of Respondents: A sponsor or applicant for a drug or biological product who requests a formal meeting with the Agency regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product.
2. Burden Estimate: Provided below is an estimate of the annual reporting burden for the submission of meeting requests and information packages under the guidance.
Based on data collected from the review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately 975 sponsors and applicants (respondents) request approximately 2,014 formal meetings with CDER annually and approximately 127 respondents request approximately 253 formal meetings with CBER annually regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information to be submitted with a meeting request in accordance with the guidance, is estimated to be approximately 10 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.
Based on data collected from the review divisions and offices within CDER and CBER, FDA estimates that approximately 756 respondents submitted approximately 1,394 information packages to CDER annually and approximately 112 respondents submitted approximately 203 information packages to CBER annually prior to a formal meeting regarding the development and review of a PDUFA product. The hours per response, which is the estimated number of hours that a respondent would spend preparing the information package in accordance with the guidance, is estimated to be approximately 18 hours. Based on FDA's experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents this amount of time to gather and copy brief statements about the product, a description of the details for the anticipated meeting, and data and information that generally would already have been compiled for submission to the Agency.
As stated earlier, the guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply section 119(a) of FDAMA, specific PDUFA goals for the management of meetings associated with the review of human drug applications for PDUFA products, and provisions of existing regulations describing certain meetings (§§ 312.47 and 312.82). The information collection provisions in § 312.47 concerning End-of-Phase 2 meetings and Pre-NDA meetings have been approved by OMB (OMB control number 0910-0014). However, the guidance provides additional recommendations for submitting information to FDA in support of a meeting request. As a result, FDA is submitting for OMB approval these additional estimates.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 21, 2012.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651,
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
This information collection approval request is for FDA guidance on the process for formally resolving scientific and procedural disputes in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that cannot be resolved at the division level. The guidance describes procedures for formally appealing such disputes to the office or center level and for submitting information to assist center officials in resolving the issue(s) presented. The guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply provisions of the existing regulations regarding internal Agency review of decisions (§ 10.75 (21 CFR 10.75), dispute resolution during the investigational new drug (IND) process (§ 312.48 (21 CFR 312.48)), and the new drug application/abbreviated new drug application (NDA/ANDA) process (§ 314.103(21 CFR 314.103)). In addition, the guidance provides information on how the Agency will interpret and apply the specific Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) goals for major dispute resolution associated with the development and review of PDUFA products.
Existing regulations, which appear primarily in 21 CFR parts 10, 312, and 314, establish procedures for the resolution of scientific and procedural disputes between interested persons and the Agency, CDER, and CBER. All Agency decisions on such matters are based on information in the administrative file (§ 10.75(d)). In general, the information in an administrative file is collected under existing regulations in part 312 (OMB control number 0910-0014), part 314 (OMB control number 0910-0001), and part 601 (21 CFR part 601) (OMB control number 0910-0338), which specify the information that manufacturers must submit so that FDA may properly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products. This information is usually submitted as part of an IND, NDA, or biologics license application (BLA), or as a supplement to an approved application. While FDA already possesses in the administrative file the information that would form the basis of a decision on a matter in dispute resolution, the submission of particular information regarding the request itself and the data and information relied on by the requestor in the appeal would facilitate timely resolution of the dispute. The guidance describes the following collection of information not expressly specified under existing regulations: The submission of the request for dispute resolution as an amendment to the application for the underlying product, including the submission of supporting information with the request for dispute resolution.
Agency regulations (§§ 312.23(11)(d), 314.50, 314.94, and 601.2) state that information provided to the Agency as part of an IND, NDA, ANDA, or BLA is to be submitted in triplicate and with an appropriate cover form. Form FDA 1571 must accompany submissions under INDs and Form FDA 356h must accompany submissions under NDAs, ANDAs, and BLAs. Both forms have valid OMB control numbers as follows: FDA Form 1571—OMB control number. 0910-0014 and FDA Form 356h—OMB control number 0910-0338.
In the guidance document, CDER and CBER ask that a request for formal dispute resolution be submitted as an amendment to the application for the underlying product and that it be submitted to the Agency in triplicate with the appropriate form attached, either Form FDA 1571 or Form FDA 356h. The Agency recommends that a request be submitted as an amendment in this manner for two reasons: To ensure that each request is kept in the administrative file with the entire underlying application and to ensure that pertinent information about the request is entered into the appropriate tracking databases. Use of the information in the Agency's tracking databases enables the appropriate Agency official to monitor progress on the resolution of the dispute and to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken in a timely manner.
CDER and CBER have determined and the guidance recommends that the following information should be submitted to the appropriate center with each request for dispute resolution so that the Center may quickly and efficiently respond to the request: (1) A brief but comprehensive statement of each issue to be resolved, including a description of the issue, the nature of the issue (
Based on FDA's experience with dispute resolution, the Agency expects that most persons seeking formal dispute resolution will have gathered the materials listed previously when identifying the existence of a dispute with the Agency. Consequently, FDA anticipates that the collection of information attributed solely to the guidance will be minimal.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of the Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2013 through 2017. MDUFA authorizes FDA to collect user fees and use them for the process for the review of medical device applications. The current legislative authority for MDUFA expires on October 1, 2012. New legislation will be required for FDA to collect medical device user fees for future FYs. Following discussions with the device industry and periodic consultations with public stakeholders, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) directs FDA to publish the recommendations for the reauthorized program in the
The public meeting will be held on March 28, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting must be received by March 26, 2012. Submit either electronic or written comments by April 16, 2012.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Garris (email:
Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, interested persons may submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
FDA is announcing its intention to hold a public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007 (MDUFA), which authorizes FDA to collect user fees and use them for the process for the review of device applications until October 1, 2012. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future fiscal years to fund the medical device review process.
As required by section 738A(b)(2), (3), and (6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-1(b)(2), (3), and (6)), FDA obtained prior public input and negotiated an agreement with regulated industry while periodically consulting with patient and consumer advocacy groups and making minutes of negotiation and stakeholder meetings publicly available (Ref. 1). Section 738A(b)(4) of the FD&C Act , requires that, after holding negotiations with regulated industry and before transmitting the Agency's final recommendations to Congress for the reauthorized program (MDUFA III), we do the following: (1) Present the draft recommendations to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the U.S. Senate; (2) publish the draft recommendations in the
The purpose of the meeting is for the public to present its views on the draft recommendations for the reauthorized program (MDUFA III). In general, the meeting format will include a brief presentation by FDA, but will focus on hearing from different stakeholder interest groups (such as patient advocates, consumer advocates, industry, health professionals, and academic researchers). The Agency will also provide an opportunity for individuals to make presentations at the meeting and for organizations and individuals to submit written comments to the docket before and after the meeting. The following information is provided to help potential meeting participants better understand the history and evolution of the medical device user fee program and the current status of the MDUFA III draft recommendations.
In the years preceding enactment of Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) (Pub. L. 107-250), FDA's medical device program suffered a long-term, significant loss of resources that undermined the program's capacity and performance. MDUFMA was enacted “in order to provide the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the resources necessary to better review medical devices, to enact needed regulatory reforms so that medical device manufacturers can bring their safe and effective devices to the American people at an earlier time, and to ensure that reprocessed medical devices are as safe and effective as original devices” (H.R. Rep. No. 107-728, at 21 (2002)). MDUFMA had a 5-year time frame and contained two particularly important features which relate to reauthorization:
•
•
Medical device user fees and increased appropriations were essential to support high-quality, timely medical device reviews, and other activities critical to the device review program.
MDUFMA provided for fee discounts and waivers for small businesses. Small businesses make up a large proportion of the device industry, and these discounts and waivers helped reduce the financial impact of the user fees on this sector of the device industry, which plays an important role in fostering innovation.
FDA provided periodic reports on its progress towards meeting these performance goals and commitments to stakeholders and Congress. FDA also
In August 2005, Congress enacted the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act (Pub. L. 109-45) (MDUFSA), which modified several provisions of MDUFMA. MDUFSA: (1) Repealed the appropriations trigger for FY 2003 and FY 2004 and allowed for tolerances of up to 1 percent of the appropriations trigger for FY 2005-2007; (2) provided for predictable application fees by establishing fixed annual fees for FY 2006 and FY 2007, although at a lower rate of increase than under the original legislation; and (3) expanded the definition of “small business” for FY 2006 and FY 2007. However, MDUFSA did not address the issue of ensuring predictable revenues for FDA.
In 2007, Congress reauthorized medical device user fees through FY 2012 under the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007 (MDUFA II) (title II of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007(FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-85).
Under MDUFA II, the user fee program remained intact, with a few significant modifications to the program. The user fee framework was changed to provide a more reliable and stable funding stream. Specifically, MDUFA II included establishment registration as a new fee type that provided a more predictable amount of funds to be collected by the Agency in any given year. MDUFA II also included changes to the performance goals. Compared to MDUFMA, there were fewer performance goals under MDUFA II, yet the goals were more demanding. FDA published the commitment letter outlining the goals in the last reauthorization, as well as a number of reports that provide the public with useful background on MDUFMA, FDAAA, and MDUFA II (Ref. 2). FDA also posted video presentations on the medical device user fee program to give the public more background information on the program (Ref. 3).
In preparing the proposed recommendations to transmit to Congress for MDUFA reauthorization, we have conducted discussions with the device industry, and we have consulted with stakeholders as required by law. We began the MDUFA reauthorization process with a public meeting held on September 14, 2010 (75 FR 49502, August 13, 2010). The meeting included presentations by FDA and a series of panels representing different stakeholder groups, including patient advocates, consumer groups, the device industry, health care professionals, and scientific and academic experts.
From January 2011 through February 2012, FDA conducted negotiations with representatives of the device industry: The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed); the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA); the Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance (MITA); and, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA). FDA also held monthly consultations with public stakeholders during that time period. As directed by Congress, FDA posted minutes of these discussions on its Web site (Ref. 4).
The proposed recommendations for MDUFA III address many of the priorities and concerns identified by public stakeholders and the device industry, and many of the important challenges identified by FDA. Each recommendation is briefly described with reference to the applicable section of the draft commitment letter (Ref. 5).
In conjunction with the proposed enhancements and performance goals outlined in the draft commitment letter, FDA is proposing new user fees and several statutory changes. The specific proposals are briefly described with reference to the applicable section of the draft legislative language (Ref. 6).
FDA is proposing several process improvements designed to increase the consistency, predictability, transparency, and efficiency of the device review program.
A Pre-Submission provides the opportunity for an applicant to obtain FDA feedback prior to submission of an investigational device exemption or marketing application. Although no specific resources are being allocated through the proposed MDUFA III user fees for the Pre-Submission program, FDA is proposing that we will institute a structured process for managing Pre-Submissions, as resources permit, and not to the detriment of meeting the quantitative review timelines in this proposal and statutory obligations. FDA is proposing to issue a draft guidance document and final guidance document on Pre-Submissions. The draft commitment letter includes additional details on the manner in which FDA intends to manage Pre-Submissions. These details can be found in section I.A of the draft commitment letter.
FDA is proposing to implement revised submission acceptance criteria through the publication of guidance. These revised criteria are intended to ensure that FDA is only reviewing complete submissions. The guidance will outline electronic copy of submissions (e-Copy) and objective criteria for revised “refuse to accept/refuse to file” checklists. This recommendation can be found in section I.B of the draft commitment letter. FDA is also proposing corresponding statutory language mandating e-Copy of submissions; this statutory requirement would be implemented through the guidance described in this paragraph. (See section III.L of this document for further information about this proposed statutory change).
FDA is proposing to continue to incorporate an interactive review process to provide for, and encourage, informal communication between FDA and applicants to facilitate timely completion of the review process based on accurate and complete information. This recommendation can be found in section I.C of the draft commitment letter.
FDA is proposing to apply user fee revenues to supplement the improvement of the process of developing, reviewing, tracking, issuing, and updating guidance documents. This recommendation can be found in section I.D of the draft commitment letter.
Although no specific resources are being allocated through the proposed MDUFA III user fees for the Third Party Review program, FDA is recommending reauthorization of the program and will work with interested parties to strengthen and improve the current program as resources permit. This recommendation can be found in section I.E of the draft commitment letter.
FDA proposes to fully implement final guidance on factors to consider when making benefit-risk determinations in medical device
FDA proposes to identify additional low risk medical devices to exempt from premarket notification. This recommendation can be found in section I.G of the draft commitment letter.
FDA proposes to work with industry to develop a transitional In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD) approach for the regulation of emerging diagnostics. This recommendation can be found in section I.H of the draft commitment letter.
FDA is proposing to meet more rigorous goals for MDUFA III while streamlining management of the program. In making these proposals, we have taken into account efficiencies planned for in MDUFA III including: Additional scientific, regulatory, and leadership training; additional staff, including those with expertise demanded by increasingly complex device reviews; improved submission acceptance criteria; and information technology improvements that allow us to better track and manage the device review process.
FDA is proposing to eliminate the “two-tier” goal structure that we believe is an impediment to improving average total time to decision and to reaching the ultimate goal of the medical device user fee program—for safe and effective devices to reach patients and health care professionals more quickly. FDA is proposing a more simplified goal structure, which will be easier to implement and will improve predictability of the program, leaving the program less prone to unintended consequences. The simplified goal structure includes a single, high percentage goal for each performance metric. This provides more clarity to industry so applicants will know when to expect feedback from the Agency on their marketing submissions, and allows the Agency's review staff to better manage their time. This structure also allows more flexibility in the Agency's management strategy, allowing for adjustments as needed to ensure achievement of the desired outcomes—specifically, reducing review cycles and reducing average total time to decision.
FDA is proposing decision goals of 180 FDA days for premarket approval applications (PMAs) that do not require Advisory Committee input and for 180-Day PMA Supplements, 320 FDA days for PMAs that do require Advisory Committee input, 90 FDA days for Real-Time PMA Supplements, and 90 FDA days for premarket notification (510(k)) submissions. FDA is proposing performance goals for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) waiver applications: 210 FDA days for dual submission of a 510(k) and CLIA waiver application; 180 FDA days for a CLIA waiver application not requiring Advisory Committee input; and 330 FDA days for CLIA waiver applications that do require Advisory Committee input. For each of these decision goals, FDA is proposing to “ramp-up” the percentage of applications that will be completed within the goal time line during the 5-year time period to correspond with the timetable for additional staff to be hired during MDUFA III. The goal percentages will increase to 90 or 95 percent in the final years of the program, depending on the submission type. Additionally, FDA is proposing to institute an acceptance/filing communication and Substantive Interaction goal for several submission types, which will track the Agency's communication with the applicant at specified points during the review process. FDA is proposing to retain the existing goals for Biological Licensing Applications (BLAs) and their supplements. Additional details regarding all of the quantitative review performance goals can be found in section II of the draft commitment letter.
FDA and representatives of the device industry believe that the process improvements outlined in the draft commitment letter, when implemented by all parties as intended, should reduce the average Total Time to Decision for PMA applications and 510(k) submissions, provided that the total funding of the device review program adheres to the assumptions underlying the agreement. Reducing average total time to decision is an important aspect of the ultimate goal of the user fee program, so that safe and effective devices reach patients and health care professionals more quickly. FDA proposes to report, on an annual basis, the average Total Time to Decision, as defined in the draft commitment letter, for PMA and 510(k) submissions, with shared goals for FDA and industry of 395 calendar days for PMAs and 135 calendar days for 510(k)s beginning with the FY 2013 receipt cohort, declining to 385 calendar days for PMAs and 124 calendar days for 510(k)s for the FY 2017 receipt cohort. Additional details regarding the shared outcome goals can be found in section III of the draft commitment letter.
FDA is proposing to apply user fee revenues to improve scientific and regulatory review capacity by reducing the ratio of review staff to front line supervisors and enhancing and supplementing scientific review capacity. FDA is seeking to obtain streamlined hiring authority in order to accomplish this (see section III.M of this document). FDA is proposing to apply user fee revenues to supplement training programs. FDA is proposing to continue efforts to improve its IT systems. Additional details regarding the infrastructure proposals can be found in section IV of the draft commitment letter.
In order to implement continued program improvements and efficiencies, FDA is proposing to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the process for the review of device applications. FDA is proposing to incorporate findings and recommendations of the independent assessment into its management of the premarket review program. Additional details regarding the independent assessment proposal can be found in section V of the draft commitment letter.
FDA is proposing to report its progress toward meeting the goals in the draft commitment letter through quarterly and annual reporting. The proposed reporting structure includes more detailed reporting than the Agency agreed to provide during MDUFA II. Additional details regarding the performance reporting structure can be found in section VI of the draft commitment letter.
In calculating user fees for each new FY in MDUFA III, FDA proposes to adjust the base revenue amount by inflation. This methodology is specified in the draft legislative language. The
Implementing the proposed enhancements discussed in the previous sections of this document will require approximately $595 million, before adjustments for inflation, in device user fee revenue over the course of the 5-year MDUFA III period, FY 2013 through FY 2017. Proposed user fee collections, before adjustments for inflation, are: $97,722,301 in FY 2013; $112,580,497 in FY 2014; $125,767,107 in FY 2015; $129,339,949 in FY 2016; and $130,184,348 in FY 2017. This user fee revenue will support approximately 208 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) staff by the end of the MDUFA III period. In addition, these fee levels will support the continued funding of approximately 32 FTEs over current staffing levels that FDA plans to hire by the end of FY 2012 under MDUFA II using currently authorized and appropriated user fees. Therefore, the net increase over current staffing levels will be approximately 240 FTEs as a result of this proposal. Collections slightly above proposed user fee spending in the early years of MDUFA III will ensure that funds are available to hire additional staff in order to meet the proposed commitments, and will be balanced by collections slightly below proposed user fee spending in the later years of MDUFA III. As in MDUFA II, the premarket application fee and the establishment registration fee are set during the annual fee setting, and other submission fees are determined as a percentage of the premarket application fee. In MDUFA III, the percentage associated with a premarket notification (510(k)) is being raised from 1.84 percent of a premarket application fee to 2.0 percent of a premarket application fee. All other percentages remain the same as during MDUFA II. Base fee amounts for premarket applications, prior to adjustments for inflation, are proposed as: $248,000 in FY 2013; $252,960 in FY 2014; $258,019 in FY 2015; $263,180 in FY 2016; and $268,443 in FY 2017. Base fee amounts for establishment registration, prior to annual adjustments, are proposed as: $2,575 in FY 2013; $3,200 in FY 2014; $3,750 in FY 2015; $3,872 in FY 2016; and $3,872 in FY 2017. Additional details regarding the MDUFA III fees can be found in section 738(a) and (b) of the draft legislative language.
The proposed legislative language eliminates exemptions under MDUFA II that allowed certain types of establishments to meet their requirement to register without incurring a fee. This amendment will increase the base of establishments paying registration fees. Additional details regarding this modification can be found in section 737(13) of the draft legislative language.
FDA is proposing a provision for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in the Secretary's sole discretion, to grant a waiver or reduction of fees if the Secretary finds that such waiver or reduction is in the interest of public health. Additional details regarding this provision can be found in section 738(f) of the draft legislative language.
FDA is proposing to update the appropriations trigger and the spending trigger to FY 2009 levels. This will provide assurance to industry that user fees will be additive to Budget Authority appropriations, as was the original intent of the user fee program and of the appropriations and spending triggers. Additional details regarding these updates can be found in section 738(h)(1)(A) and (i)(2)(A)(ii) of the draft legislative language.
In order to implement revised submission acceptance criteria, FDA is proposing statutory language requiring an electronic copy (e-Copy) to be provided with any pre-submission or submission for devices. The proposed language provides that implementation of this requirement would occur following issuance of final guidance providing standards for such electronic copy. Additional details regarding this provision can be found under the heading “Subchapter D—Information and Education” in the draft legislative language.
In order to facilitate the steep ramp-up in hiring necessary to accomplish the goals agreed to in the draft commitment letter, FDA is proposing statutory language that would grant streamlined hiring authority to FDA for the first 3 years of MDUFA III. Additional details regarding this provision can be found under the heading “STREAMLINED HIRING AUTHORITY OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TO SUPPORT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE PROCESS FOR THE REVIEW OF DEVICE APPLICATIONS” in the draft legislative language.
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the
1. The minutes from FDA's negotiation and stakeholder meetings are available at
2. The MDUFA II commitment letter, key
3. The pre-recorded video presentations are available at
4. The minutes from FDA's negotiation and stakeholder meetings are available at
5. Further information can be found on FDA's Web site at
6. Further information can be found on FDA's Web site at
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) updates and clarifies the implementation of the Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students (SDS) program under authority of Section 737 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). The publication of the final notice will supersede all previous notices regarding the SDS program.
To provide larger award amounts to schools and to increase the retention and graduation of underrepresented
(1) Convert the currently formula-based SDS program to a competitive peer-reviewed grant program.
(2) Convert the grant award from a current 1-year project period to a project period of 4-years. A successful applicant would be awarded a 4-year project period with funding provided annually subject to appropriations, the availability of funds and successful progress.
(3) Add a new requirement that individual student awards must be at least 50 percent of the student's annual tuition costs for tuition $30,000 or less, but no student can be awarded over $15,000 SDS funds per year. Individual student awards must be $15,000 for students whose tuitions are over $30,000 per year.
(4) Increase the weight and provide a range of points for primary care and underrepresented minority priorities.
(5) Expand the disciplines eligible for the primary care priority (allopathic and osteopathic medicine, dentistry, graduate nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) to also include dental hygiene and behavioral and mental health.
(6) Use the Institute of Medicine's primary care definition to identify primary care service for the primary care priority within the eligible primary care disciplines:
Primary Care is the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community. (Institute of Medicine. Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996).
(7) Increase the school eligibility requirement for disadvantaged students enrolled and disadvantaged students graduated to 20 percent each.
(1) Twenty (20) percent of enrolled students must be disadvantaged.
(2) Twenty (20) percent of graduates must be disadvantaged.
(3) Schools must have a recruitment program for disadvantaged students.
(4) Schools must have a retention program for disadvantaged students.
(5) Student award must be at least 50 percent of the annual tuition cost with a $15,000 maximum award per year, when annual tuition is $30,000 or below—above $30,000 annual tuition equals $15,000 award.
(1) Meet the definition of an “individual from a disadvantaged background” as defined above (PHS Act Sec. 737);
(2) Have a financial need for a scholarship, in accordance with a need analysis procedure approved by the Department of Education (Pub. L. 105-244, Part F, The Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended). In addition, any student who is enrolled (or accepted for enrollment) in a health profession school or program must provide information on his or her parents' financial situation or his or her own depending upon the tax status of the student, and
(3) Be enrolled (or accepted for enrollment), as a full-time student, at an eligible health professions or nursing school in a program leading to a degree in nursing or a heath profession (PHS Act Sec. 737).
The law also requires that schools give awards to students who were former recipients of scholarships under PHS Act sections 736 (Exceptional Financial Need Scholarships) and 740(d)(2)(B) (Financial Assistance for Disadvantaged Health Professions Students Scholarships), as such sections existed on November 13, 1998, if such recipients are still students in financial need.
(1) Degree to which applicant demonstrates its commitment to the education of disadvantaged students, especially underrepresented minorities (10 points).
(2) Degree to which applicant demonstrates its commitment to increasing primary care practitioners (10 points).
(3) Degree to which applicant demonstrates its commitment to increasing graduates working in medically underserved communities (MUCs) (10 points).
(4) Level of achievements and successes in educating disadvantaged students, including underrepresented minorities, in a way that eliminates barriers along the educational pipeline for disadvantaged students and assures graduates practice in primary care and serve in MUCs (30 points).
(5) Level of adequacy of proposed plan to increase and educate disadvantaged students, including underrepresented minorities, and retain students in their academic programs, and encourage them to enter primary care and serve in MUCs (40 points).
Written comments should be addressed to: Anita Rhawn, Public Health Analyst, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Room 9-105, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; telephone (301) 443-5331.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitationsimposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice ishereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidentialtrade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individualsassociated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion ofpersonal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General Notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses and all associated permits are cancelled without prejudice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due to the death of the broker:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of proposed information collection.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. The data required by Office of Native American Programs Training and Technical Assistance NOFA includes pre-award application materials required to be submitted, and post award requirements under the cooperative agreement including technical budgets and reports on financial and task progress. The data identifies needs, outputs and outcomes of the training and technical assistance.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this information collection proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB Control number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Departmental Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4160, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202.402.3400, (this is not a toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at
Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number).
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, as approved on November 18, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-55, 125 Stat. 552) authorizes HUD to award training and technical assistance contracts on a competitive basis. HUD intends to competitively award training and technical assistance contracts to national and regional nonprofit and for-profit entities with demonstrated experience and expertise in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA).
The purpose of the ONAP Training and Technical Assistance program is to improve the quality and quantity of low-income housing in Native American, Alaska Native, and native Hawaiian communities, as funded by Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) and Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants (NHHBG) and authorized by NAHASDA. The regulations for the IHBG program are at 24 CFR part 1000, and for the NHHBG program at 24 CFR part 1006.
Successful applicants will have demonstrated training and technical assistance experience and expertise in NAHASDA; low-income housing development, inspection, maintenance, modernization, and operation; admissions and occupancy; procurement; financial and fiscal management; program income; governance and organizational development; leveraged financing, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits; healthy home environments, including mold and air quality issues; homebuyer education; crime prevention; youth activities, including Boys and Girls Clubs; and other topics responsive to low-income housing issues in native communities. Training and technical assistance services will be provided onsite and remotely, on a one-on-one and classroom basis.
Respondents to the NOFA will be required to submit a single proposal regardless of the number of programs or areas of expertise for which they offer to provide training and technical assistance. Factors for award include Factor 1: Capacity and Experience, Factor 2: Soundness of Approach, Factor 3: Leveraging, and Factor 4: Achieving Results and Program Evaluation. Narratives addressing Factors 1-4 must be formatted so that the total number of pages submitted is equal to or no more than 25 single-sided pages. The one-page application summary, organizational chart, budget discussion, and required forms are not included in the 25 page limit. Required forms include HUD-2880 (Applicant/Recipient Disclosure Update), HUD-2993 (Acknowledgement of Application Receipt), HUD-96011 (HUD Facsimile Transmittal), SF-424 (Application for Federal Assistance), and SF-LLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities). Applicants must submit their applications electronically to Grants.Gov or request a waiver from HUD. HUD expects to receive 25 applications and select ten awardees to enter in 24-month cooperative agreements, with a 12-month option period.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, 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 2010 (FY2010) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the HOPE VI Revitalization grant program. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of this year's award recipients under the HOPE VI Revitalization grant program.
For questions concerning the HOPE VI Revitalization program grant awards, contact Ms. Susan Wilson, Director, Office of Urban Revitalization, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202- 401-8812. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The HOPE VI Revitalization Program provides grants to public housing authorities (PHAs) to: (1) Improve the living environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public housing projects through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public housing projects; (2) revitalize sites on which such public housing projects are located and contribute to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood; (3) provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families; and (4) build sustainable communities.
The FY2010 awards totaled $152,729,750, which included funds from both the FY2010 and FY2011 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhood appropriation. The FY 2010 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhood appropriation only allowed for the funding of six applications submitted in response to the FY2010 NOFA. In addition to the FY2010 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods appropriation, HUD used the FY2011 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods appropriation to fund two additional FY2010 HOPE VI applicants. HUD used the FY2011 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhood assistance due to the need to award the FY2011 appropriation to communities as soon as possible and the fact that there were many more high-quality HOPE VI applicants in FY2010 than HUD was able to fund, for which use of the FY2011 appropriation provided a remedy. The results of HUD's HOPE VI selections were announced on May 23, 2011. At that time, and in addition to the applicant and Congressional notification processes, eight grantees and the amount of each award was posted to the HUD Web site at:
As a result of HUD's decision, HUD was able to fund eight public housing authorities (PHAs) from among 36 PHAs that applied for FY2010 HOPE VI Revitalization funding. Using the FY2011 HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods appropriation in this way allowed HUD to fund two additional FY2010 HOPE VI Revitalization applicants and two additional FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods applicants that would not have otherwise been funded (FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods awards are addressed in a separate
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by April 19, 2012.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456).
•
•
•
Kris Olsen, Permit Coordinator Ecological Services, (303) 236-4256 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes you to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456) for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (capture, hold, tag, and propagate) American burying beetle
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) Southwestern willow flycatcher
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) Southwestern willow flycatcher
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (display and propagate) captive-bred black-footed ferret
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (display) captive-bred black-footed ferret
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey)
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (capture, hold, tag, and propagate) Wyoming toad
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (survey, tag, and reintroduce) black-footed ferret
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to remove and reduce to possession the following species, in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring for the purpose of enhancing each species' survival. Activities will occur on Federal lands in Colorado, throughout the range of each species.
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to remove and reduce to possession the following species, in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring for the purpose of enhancing each species' survival. Activities will occur on Federal lands in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, throughout the range of each species.
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to remove and reduce to possession the following species, in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring for the purpose of enhancing each species' survival. Activities will occur on Federal lands in Utah and Wyoming, throughout the range of each species.
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) interior least tern
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (collect, reintroduce, propagate, and rear) Salt Creek tiger beetle
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (survey, trap, tag, and propagate) black-footed ferret
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (survey, handle, and band) interior least tern
The applicant request renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) Mexican spotted owl
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by April 19, 2012.
You may submit comments or requests for copies or more information by any of the following methods. Alternatively, you may use one of the following methods to request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents. Please specify the permit you are interested in by number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456).
•
•
•
Kris Olsen, Permit Coordinator Ecological Services, (303) 236-4256 (phone);
The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act authorizes you to conduct activities with United States endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
We invite local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., Permit No. TE-123456) for the application when submitting comments.
Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (capture, hold, tag, propagate, and kill) pallid sturgeon
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (capture, survey, and tag) bonytail
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) Southwestern willow flycatcher
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) interior least tern
The applicant requests an amendment to an existing permit to increase take of 560 hatchery-reared pallid sturgeon
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) the following species, in conjunction with surveys and population monitoring activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival:
American burying beetle
Black-footed ferret
Mexican spotted owl
Preble's meadow jumping mouse
Southwestern willow flycatcher
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by
The applicant requests renewal of an existing permit to take (harass by survey) American burying beetle
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
All comments and materials we receive in response to this request will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given below, by
Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: Cameron Shaw, Permit Coordinator).
Cameron Shaw, telephone 904/731-3191; facsimile 904/731-3045.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of gray bats
Applicant requests authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys and to conduct scientific studies on the following species:
Indiana bat
Gray bat
Virginia big-eared bat
Ozark big-eared bat
Relict Darter
Blackside dace
This work will be carried out on lands under the authority of the Kentucky Division of Abandoned Mines.
Applicant requests authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys and to conduct scientific studies on the following species:
Indiana bat
Gray bat
Virginia big-eared bat
This work will be carried out in Kentucky.
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of gray bats (
Applicant requests authorization for non-lethal take of American burying beetle (
Applicant requests authorization to capture and collect biological specimens from wood storks (
Applicant requests the addition of Missouri, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio to the location authorized for conducting presence/absence surveys and scientific investigation on listed freshwater mussel species and authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys for the blackside dace (
Applicant requests authorization to conduct presence/absence surveys on the following freshwater mussel species:
Fat threeridge
Shinyrayed pocketbook
Gulf moccasinshell
Ochlockonee moccasinshell
Oval pigtoe
Chipola slabshell
Purple bankclimber
These surveys will be conducted in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
Applicant requests authorization to take (non-lethally) the Ozark hellbender (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic nuisance species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information. The meeting is open to the public.
The ANS Task Force will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., from Wednesday, May 2 through Thursday May 3, 2012.
The ANS Task Force meeting will take place at the O'Callaghan Annapolis Hotel, 174 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-263-7700). You may inspect minutes of the meeting at the office of the Chief, Division of Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday. You may also view the minutes on the ANS Task Force Web site at:
Susan Mangin, Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, at (703) 358-2466, or by email at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this notice announces meetings of the ANS Task Force. The ANS Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 106-580, as amended).
Topics that the ANS Task Force plans to cover during the meeting include:
• ANSTF Strategic Plan
• ANSTF Recreational Guidelines
• Nutria
• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
• Impact of Fish Passage on the Movement of ANS.
The agenda and other related meeting information are on the ANS Task Force Web site at:
The meeting location is accessible to wheelchair users. If you require additional accommodations, please notify us at least 1 week in advance of the meeting.
We publish this notice under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision to Ahtna, Incorporated. The decision will approve the conveyance of the surface and subsurface estates in certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
3. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.
The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960 or by email at
The BLM will reply during normal business hours.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meetings.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will hold three meetings in Nevada in fiscal year 2012. All meetings are open to the public.
April 19 at the California Trail Interpretive Center, 8 miles west of Elko, Nevada at Hunter exit of Interstate 80; July 19 and 20 at the BLM Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada; and September 20, at the BLM Battle Mountain District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Approximate meeting times are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. However, meetings could end earlier if discussions and presentations conclude before 4 p.m. All meetings will include a public comment period at approximately 10 a.m.
Lesli Ellis-Wouters, Public Affairs Officer, Elko District Office, 3900 E. Idaho St., Elko, NV 89801. Telephone: (775) 753-0386. Email:
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada. Topics for discussion at each meeting will include, but are not limited to:
• April 19 (Elko)—Rangeland Health Assessments, Battle Mountain Resource Management Plan, greater sage-grouse conservation, and recreation;
• July 19 and 20 (Ely)—field tour to Spring Valley Wind/Falcon-Gonder/Online (SWIP) transmission lines and greater sage-grouse leks;
• September 20 (Battle Mountain)—tour of Shoshone Off-Highway Vehicle trail and wild horse and burro program.
Final agendas will be posted on-line at the BLM Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Web site at
Individuals who need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, or who wish to receive a copy of each agenda, may contact Lesli Ellis-Wouters no later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The business meeting will be held on May 17, 2012. On May 18, 2012, there will be a field trip to the Denny Flat area.
The meeting will be held at the Geiser Grand Hotel, located at 1996 Main Street, Baker City, Oregon, on May 17, 2012.
Mark Wilkening, Public Affairs Specialist, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, (541) 473-6218 or email
The May 17, 2012, meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) at the Geiser Grand Hotel, in Baker City, Oregon. Topics may include: Blue Mountain Forest Plan, John Day Basin Final, Step-down BLM Vegetation Environmental Impact Statement, Malheur Travel Management, potential update of Deschutes/Ochoco/Crooked River Grassland vegetation plan, updates by Federal managers on litigation, energy projects, and other issues affecting their districts/units and other matters as may reasonably come before the RACs. All RAC meetings are open to the public; time is set aside for oral comments at 1 p.m. on May 17, 2012. Those who verbally address the RAC are asked to provide a
The field trip on May 18 will start at 8 a.m. PDT, and members will be looking at grazing parcels in the Denny Flat area. The field trip should end by 2 p.m.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of public scoping meetings and request for comments.
The Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (Proposed Program) schedules two potential lease sales, Proposed Lease Sales 225 and 226, to accommodate anticipated industry interest in the portion of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Eastern Planning Area (EPA) that is not currently subject to the Congressionally-mandated leasing moratorium. This notice describes the public scoping process that BOEM is initiating in preparation for completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) relating to these two proposed sales. While it is necessary to commence the presale information gathering process before finalizing the Five-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 in order to conform to the schedule in the Proposed Program, this scoping and EIS process will be terminated in the event that Lease Sales 225 and 226 are not included in the Final Program.
Pursuant to the regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Throughout the scoping process, Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments and the general public have the opportunity to aid BOEM in determining the significant issues, reasonable alternatives, and potential mitigating measures to be analyzed in the EIS, as well as to provide additional information. Possible alternatives for analysis may represent a range of levels of activities, including: (1) The proposed action (holding the Lease Sale); (2) taking no action (canceling or postponing the sale); (3) defining appropriate restrictions on oil and gas activities based on environmental resources that are present; and/or (4) defining temporal or spatial work windows to accommodate the existing use of OCS space important to other critical national missions. Additional alternatives developed through scoping and NEPA evaluation will be considered and may also be evaluated. BOEM will receive statements, oral and written, at the venues listed below. All persons wishing to speak will have the opportunity to do so. Time limits may be set on speakers to allow time for all speakers to participate. The following public scoping meetings are planned for proposed Lease Sales 225 and 226:
•
•
•
•
Procedures for submitting written comments via mail and electronically are also detailed below.
Proposed Lease Sales 225 and 226 are tentatively scheduled for 2014 and 2016 under the Proposed Program. The previous lease sale in the EPA, Lease Sale 224, was held on March 19, 2008. The EIS that will be prepared subsequent to this scoping process will analyze an area in the EPA that was addressed in
Written scoping comments may be submitted in one of the following two ways:
1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Scoping for Proposed EPA Lease Sales 225 and 226” and mailed (or hand delivered) to Mr. Gary
2. Electronically to the BOEM email address:
Petitions, although accepted, do not generally provide more weight or useful information than a single comment to assist in scoping. Please include your name and address as part of your submittal; BOEM does not consider anonymous comments. BOEM makes all comments, including the names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that BOEM withhold their name and/or address from the public record; this request will be honored to the extent allowable by law. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state your preference prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments should be submitted no later than May 4, 2012 to the address or email address specified above.
For information on the EIS, public scoping meetings, the submission of comments, or BOEM's policies associated with this notice, please contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Regional Assessment Section, Office of Environment (MS 5410), BOEM, GOM OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70123-2394, telephone (504) 736-3233.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing its intention to request approval for the collections of information for 30 CFR part 735—Grants for Program Development and Administration and Enforcement, 30 CFR part 885 — Grants for Certified States and Indian Tribes, and 30 CFR part 886—State and Tribal Reclamation Grants. This collection request has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by April 19, 2012, in order to be assured of consideration.
Please send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, via email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
The OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collections of information contained in 30 CFR part 735—Grants for Program Development and Administration and Enforcement, 30 CFR part 886—State and Tribal Reclamation Grants, and 30 CFR part 885—Grants for Certified States and Indian Tribes. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Responses are required to receive a benefit of grant funding. The OMB control number for 30 CFR parts 735, 885, 886 and the corresponding forms OSM-47, OSM-49, and OSM-51 that require grant submittals are currently approved under OMB control number 1029-0059.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing that the information collection request for surface and underground mining permit applications—minimum requirements for information on environmental resources, has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost. This information collection activity was previously approved by OMB and assigned control number 1029-0035.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by April 19, 2012, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax to (202) 395-5806 or by email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in 30 CFR Parts 779 and 783—Surface and Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0035. Responses are required to obtain a benefit for this collection.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Earthquakes range from extremely small and virtually unnoticeable events to catastrophic events that cause considerable damage. Unlike oil and gas drilling operations, coal mining is typically undertaken at a much shallower depth, and without injection of great volumes of water to fracture (frack) the rock strata. Therefore, OSM's engineers consider it virtually impossible for coal mine drilling to cause a reportable earthquake. To be certain, we checked with the United States Geological Survey to determine if there is any evidence of coal mine drilling causing earthquakes. We found no mention of coal mine drilling causing earthquakes of any size. In conclusion, we have determined that the comment is not supported by available scientific information and therefore does not warrant conducting national rulemaking to request earthquake data in the permit area.
This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 20, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,Washington, DC 20436,Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. No. 731-TA-472 (Third Review) (Silicon Metal from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before March 30, 2012.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 21, 2012 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,Washington, DC 20436,Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: none
2. Minutes
3. Ratification List
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 731-TA-313, 314, 317, and 379 (Third Review) (Brass Sheet and Strip from France, Germany, Italy, and Japan). The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before April 13, 2012.
5. Outstanding action jackets: none
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in schedule I or II, and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide ma