Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Engineers Corps
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Final rule.
In compliance with the February 21, 2012 Presidential Memorandum “Driving Innovation and Creating Jobs In Rural America through Biobased and Sustainable Product Procurement,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement, to add 13 sections to designate product categories within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference, as provided for under section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”). USDA is also establishing minimum biobased contents for each of these product categories.
This rule is effective May 4, 2012.
Ron Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20024; email:
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
These product categories are designated under the authority of section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in this document as “section 9002”).
As part of the BioPreferred Program, USDA published, on September 14, 2011, a proposed rule in the
In the proposed rule, USDA proposed designating the following 13 product categories for the preferred procurement program: Air fresheners and deodorizers; asphalt and tar removers; asphalt restorers; blast media; candles and wax melts; electronic components cleaners; floor coverings (non-carpet); foot care products; furniture cleaners and protectors; inks; packaging and insulating materials; pneumatic equipment lubricants; and wood and concrete stains.
Today's final rule designates the proposed product categories within which biobased products will be afforded Federal procurement preference. USDA has determined that each of the product categories being designated under today's rulemaking meets the necessary statutory requirements; that they are being produced with biobased products; and that their procurement will carry out the following objectives of section 9002: To improve demand for biobased products; to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities; and to enhance the Nation's energy security by substituting biobased products for products derived from imported oil and natural gas.
When USDA designates by rulemaking a product category (a generic grouping of products) for preferred procurement under the BioPreferred Program, manufacturers of all products under the umbrella of that product category, that meet the requirements to qualify for preferred procurement, can claim that status for their products. To qualify for preferred procurement, a product must be within a designated product category and must contain at least the minimum biobased content established for the designated item. With the designation of these specific product categories, USDA invites the manufacturers and vendors of qualifying products to provide information on the product, contacts, and performance testing for posting on its BioPreferred Web site,
USDA has developed a preliminary list of product categories for future designation and has posted this preliminary list on the BioPreferred Web site. While this list presents an initial prioritization of product categories for designation, USDA cannot identify with certainty which product categories will be presented in each of the future rulemakings. In response to comments from other Federal agencies, USDA intends to give increased priority to those product categories that contain the highest biobased content. In addition, as the program matures, manufacturers of biobased products within some industry segments have become more responsive to USDA's requests for technical information than those in other segments. Thus, product categories with high biobased content and for which sufficient technical information can be obtained quickly may be added or moved up on the prioritization list.
As a result of the public comments received on the proposed rule, USDA has made changes in finalizing the proposed rule. These changes are summarized in the remainder of this section. A summary of each comment received, and USDA's response to the comment, is presented in section IV.
In the final rule, USDA has changed the name of one product category being designated. That product category was proposed as “packaging and insulating materials,” but is being changed in the final rule to “packing and insulating materials.” After the proposed rule was published, USDA learned of a potential
In addition to revising the name of the proposed product category to “packing and insulating materials,” USDA has lowered the minimum biobased content for this product category to 74 percent. At proposal, the recommended minimum biobased content was 82 percent and was based on a product with a tested biobased content of 85 percent. After the proposed rule was published, the manufacturer of this particular product re-tested the biobased content of the product as part of the application process to obtain certification to use the USDA Certified Biobased Product label. The results of the re-test showed a biobased content of 77 percent. USDA does not have any additional information to indicate which of the testing results (85 percent biobased or 77 percent biobased) are more accurate. Because of this uncertainty, and because the difference between the two values is not large, USDA decided that it was reasonable to use the lower tested value to establish the minimum biobased content in the final rule. Therefore, the minimum biobased content for the “packing and insulating materials” product category in the final rule is 74 percent (the 77 percent tested value minus 3 percentage points to account for variability in the testing procedure).
USDA has also revised the minimum biobased content for the “furniture cleaners and protectors” product category from the proposed level of 77 percent to 71 percent in the final rule. At the time the proposed minimum biobased content for this product category was established, USDA had test data on six products. The biobased content of these six furniture cleaners and protectors ranged from 9 percent to 100 percent, as follows: 9, 28, 80, 91, 98, and 100 percent. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (76 FR 56897), USDA decided to set the minimum biobased content for the product category at 77 percent, based on the product with the tested biobased content of 80 percent.
After the proposed rule was published, USDA received biobased content data on an additional product within this product category. The biobased content of this product is 74 percent, which is 6 percentage points lower than the product originally selected as the basis for the minimum biobased content. With the new data point included, the data fall into two obvious groups, with a significant gap between them. The two lowest data points are 9 and 28 percent and the five highest data points are 74, 80, 91, 98, and 100 percent. USDA believes it is reasonable to set the minimum biobased content in the final rule based on the product with the 74 percent biobased content. Therefore, the minimum biobased content for the “furniture cleaners and protectors” product category in the final rule is 71 percent (the 74 percent tested value minus 3 percentage points to account for variability in the testing procedure). As is the case for all product categories, USDA will continue to gather and consider new biobased content testing data. When found to be necessary, USDA will revise the minimum biobased content of product categories through established notice and comment rulemaking procedures.
USDA solicited comments on the proposed rule for 60 days ending on November 14, 2011. USDA received eight comments by that date. Four of the comments were from individual citizens, two were from trade groups, one was from a biobased product manufacturer, and one was from a Federal agency commenter. The comments are presented below, along with USDA's response, and are grouped by the product categories to which they apply.
As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, USDA intends to establish subcategories based on the existence of “groups” of products with different performance requirements or different functional uses. In the case of floor coverings, USDA did not identify specific performance requirements that the commenter's product could meet that could not be met by one or more of the other available biobased products.
Another consideration for establishing subcategories is the presence of a product or group of products with some unique desirable characteristics not found in the other products and whose biobased content differs considerably from other products in the category. The 91 percent minimum biobased content that has been established for the product category is sufficiently high that USDA does not believe it is reasonable to create a subcategory based on biobased content differences. The 91 percent minimum biobased content ensures that products that qualify for the procurement preference are truly legitimate biobased products with only minimal non-biobased ingredients.
In summary, USDA believes that the floor covering (non-carpet) product category is defined such that Federal agencies may select from several different biobased alternative products. The decision on which biobased products to purchase will be based on a range of factors including durability, appearance, required maintenance, and cost. While the commenter's product may be a very competitive product within the floor covering category, USDA does not believe that creating a separate subcategory for it is justified.
The commenter also stated that USDA should look to existing industry standards for inks with biobased material content. The commenter noted that one such program is SoySeal, developed by the American Soybean Association (ASA), which has set minimum soy oil contents for a variety of different classes of inks. The commenter stated that ASA set these standards based on their research on incorporating soy oil into various types of printing inks, their unique properties, and testing of the formulations. The percentages are expressed as the percentage of soy oil out of the total formula weight of the inks.
The commenter supports the total formula weight approach taken by the SoySeal program and recommends that USDA also adopt this approach. The commenter stated that the approach taken by SoySeal to define soy content limits by weight percent is readily understood in the industry and should be adopted by USDA. The commenter stated that this method allows for straightforward determination of soy or biobased content, based on ink formulation knowledge, instead of requiring expensive testing using the ASTM D6866 standard. The commenter stated that the ASTM test method can only be conducted by one lab and costs $600 per sample. The commenter stated that USDA did not specify in its proposal how the sampling for the test is to be conducted. According to the commenter, it is not clear if a representative formulation can be tested or if each color of each ink is to be tested and, since there are literally thousands of possible ink formulations, testing each and every ink is economically infeasible. The commenter stated that using a total ink formulation approach certified by the ink manufacturer provides a much more economical approach. Also, according to the commenter, it is unclear how the biobased content guidelines set by USDA compare to those set by the SoySeal program because the two systems (percent weight versus percent of carbonaceous material that is biobased) are not easily comparable. The commenter asked, for example, if a black news ink contains 40 percent biobased material by weight, would it meet USDA's recommendations if tested by the ASTM standard? The commenter
The commenter explained that while the proposed offset ink limits may be achievable for four color process inks (i.e., cyan, yellow, magenta, and black), the limits will certainly have a negative impact on various blending systems used. According to the commenter, many printing inks are specially blended to make unique colors, often referred to as “spot colors” or by the trade name “Pantone Matching System,” which are required to match exact colors. The commenter stated that the limits set have the potential to impact these inks, as well as Ultraviolet, Electron Beam, and many metallic and florescent inks that have unique properties that may require higher non-biobased content.
The commenter also stated that the category of specialty inks used in the study is far too vaguely defined and the examples given are too diverse to be listed together. In addition, according to the commenter, the imposition of a level of 66 percent biobased material is extremely demanding for some of these applications. For example, a typical scratch and sniff ink might contain 20 percent of encapsulated fragrance, none of which is biobased. This only leaves room for 14 percent of other non-biobased materials such as pigment, binders and additives. The commenter stated that these materials, many of which are carbonaceous, cannot be substituted for biobased materials and their presence in these inks will make it nearly impossible to meet the 66 percent biobased content proposed in this program.
The commenter stated that, for toner ink systems, biobased toners are not commonly available in the U.S. market. Currently, biobased xerographic inks make up less than 1 percent of the U.S. market, and are not available for xerographic colored inks.
The commenter also stated that, in terms of cost and performance, it must be recognized that there are significant issues associated with high levels of biobased materials in printing inks. According to the commenter, these types of ink are almost always significantly more expensive than their non-biobased alternatives and, even with the current high costs of petroleum-based oils, soy oil still commands close to a 50 percent premium. In addition, the commenter stated that it is common knowledge within the graphic arts community that biobased often results inferior technical performance [color reproduction] and reduced press speeds to allow for longer drying times. The commenter explained that solvent based inks cannot be easily replaced with bio-derived oils because the oils do not volatilize quickly enough.
The commenter stated that there is no indication that an assessment of the cost difference between conventional and biobased inks was completed and that, in order to create biobased purchasing preferences, USDA needs to quantify the environmental benefit of using a biobased ink and assure that it is cost effective.
The commenter stated that many of the underlying assumptions used by USDA to determine the specific limits and ink types in the proposal are not transparent or justified. The commenter asked, as an example, of the 148 biobased inks identified by USDA, how was a sample size of 19 selected to be tested for biobased content by the ASTM standard? Also, of the biobased inks identified, how was a sample size of 3 to be analyzed by BEES determined? The commenter stated that, given the large number of inks that are on the market, it is not clear how USDA concluded that its work was representative or statistically significant. The commenter stated that they do not believe that these sample sizes are large enough to show significant findings. The commenter also stated that it is unclear if the sampling was random, as should be the case, or if the inks tested were considered to be state-of-the-art biobased inks. According to the commenter, one of the difficulties in interpreting the results of the study was that the units used to complete the BEES assessment were unclear, as the sample size was identified as 300 square inches, but not if those 300 square inches were actual ink, or if it was 300 square inches of printed material.
Another concern expressed by the commenter is the use of the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) model for testing the environmental impact of printing ink. The commenter stated that USDA does not indicate how a software program designed to assess the impact of building materials is applicable to an industrial/consumer commodity such as ink. The commenter also stated that the study doesn't indicate that a comparison of the BEES impact of conventional and biobased inks was conducted and that while it is assumed that a material with more biobased content would be better, this needs to actually be confirmed.
The commenter provided a summary of recommendations on the proposed biobased designations for inks, as follows:
1. Refine the categories to better cover the various types of printing inks used from a broad perspective such as process and spot or inks as well as specific applications such as heatset web offset lithographic, gravure (water & solvent), and flexographic (water & solvent). Energy curable (ultraviolet and electron beam), water-based and inkjet inks should have their own, separate categories.
2. Refine the specialty ink category. The current Specialty ink category is much too broad to be able to assign a biobased content across the board. While some specialty inks could be formulated to contain the 66 percent, many others cannot.
3. Utilize the SoySeal limits as the basis for the biobased content guidelines.
4. Revise the standards to indicate the total portion of the ink that is biobased, rather than the total carbonaceous portion of the ink that is biobased. This will allow for more cost effective determination of biobased content based on ink formulation information, and is already the accepted standard for comparing biobased content in printing inks.
5. Allow for the ink manufacturer to certify the biobased content based on formulation and not testing using the ASTM D6866 test.
6. Biobased inks, as proposed, should be evaluated to determine if they can meet basic performance standards and be required to meet the same performance standards as conventional inks. Manufacturers should not be given the opportunity to gain a market advantage based on production of inks with high biobased content but a poor image quality.
7. Conduct a true economic impact analysis comparing the costs of the proposed biobased materials as compared to conventional materials.
8. To better understand the life-cycle cost section, identify the “usage unit” for which price is specified.
9. To better understand the BEES results, a functional unit of 300 square inches was identified. Please clarify if this is 300 square inches of ink, or 300 square inches of printed material.
With regard to the commenter's points dealing with the Vegetable Ink Printing Act, USDA recognizes that many federal agencies' printing operations are covered by this Act. USDA points out that the designation of biobased products under section 9002 is not meant to replace or revise the requirements of the Vegetable Ink Printing Act. Instead, the designation under section 9002 is meant to extend the use of biobased printing inks to those printing operations that are not subject to the Vegetable Ink Printing Act. Under today's final rule, such printing operations must be performed using complying biobased inks to the extent that biobased inks meeting the performance and cost criteria are available.
The commenter also presented numerous points regarding the methodology used to determine biobased content and the levels set as the minimum biobased contents in the proposed rule. USDA acknowledges that the biobased content determined by ASTM D6866 does not directly compare to soy content determinations using the SoySeal procedure. However, the use of ASTM D6866 to determine biobased content has been consistently required for all designated product categories and USDA believes it is appropriate for the inks product category as well. As pointed out by the commenter, inks are typically formulated from solvents, pigments, binders, and other additives. USDA believes that using ASTM D6866 to determine the biobased content of inks will encourage the development of biobased versions of each type of ingredient in the ink. As for the number of inks tested for biobased content and the resulting proposed minimum biobased contents, USDA relied on its standard methodology of requesting that manufacturers submit samples for testing and then evaluating the results of the testing to determine the proposed minimum biobased content (see “Minimum Biobased Contents” discussion in the proposal preamble at 76 FR 56885). Additional information regarding the biobased content testing can also be found in the preamble to proposed rule at 76 FR 56896. USDA also notes that the BioPreferred program Guidelines (7 CFR 3201.7) allows that “products that are essentially the same formulation” need not be tested individually.
The commenter offered recommendations as to how USDA should redefine the inks subcategories in the final rule. USDA developed the proposed inks subcategories based on discussions with, and information provided by, ink manufacturers. There are, no doubt, many approaches that could be taken in subcategorizing the inks product category. USDA believes that the proposed subcategories will be sufficient for the initial efforts to designate the inks product category. USDA notes that the final rule does not take effect for one year after the publication date and, as mentioned above, welcomes the opportunity to meet with the commenter and others to discuss revising, refining, or expanding the subcategories at the earliest opportunity. Once a consensus has been reached between USDA and participating industry representatives, USDA will develop a rulemaking package to propose changes to the subcategories, if needed.
The commenter also questioned the performance and cost of available biobased inks. USDA recognizes that performance and cost are key factors in selecting the types of inks used in printing/copying operations. As discussed in several other responses in this preamble, federal agencies are required to consider designated biobased products but are not required to purchase and use them if the available products are not capable of meeting reasonable performance expectations or are not priced competitively with non-biobased products. Section 9002 is very specific regarding these exceptions. However, USDA encourages federal agencies to explore available biobased products and communicate with biobased product manufacturers regarding performance and cost issues. Reputable biobased product manufacturers should be willing to work with federal agencies to resolve issues and they should also recognize that, even with the federal procurement preference, they will not be successful if their products do not perform up to expectations. In response to the commenter's question about the BEES functional unit, the 300 square inches used for the BEES analyses is 300 square inches of ink.
In summary, USDA acknowledges that, because of time and budget considerations, today's designation of inks is not based on exhaustive studies and analyses. USDA also recognizes that some elements of the designation rule are subject to change as federal agencies and biobased ink manufacturers gain a better understanding of what is needed to substitute biobased inks for traditional inks. USDA invites the commenter and any other representatives of the ink manufacturing industry to submit information and to meet to discuss in detail future revisions that may be needed to the designation rule.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires agencies to determine whether a regulatory action is “significant.” The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”
Today's final rule has been determined by the Office of Management and Budget to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. We are not able to quantify the annual economic effect associated with today's final rule. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, USDA made extensive efforts to obtain information on the Federal agencies' usage within the 13 designated product categories, including their subcategories. These efforts were largely unsuccessful. Therefore, attempts to determine the economic impacts of today's final rule would require estimation of the anticipated market penetration of biobased products based upon many assumptions. In addition, because agencies have the option of not purchasing biobased products within designated product categories if price is “unreasonable,” the product is not readily available, or the product does not demonstrate necessary performance characteristics, certain assumptions may not be valid. While facing these quantitative challenges, USDA relied upon a qualitative assessment to determine the impacts of today's final rule. Consideration was also given to the fact that agencies may choose not to procure designated items due to unreasonable price.
Today's final rule is expected to have both positive and negative impacts to individual businesses, including small businesses. USDA anticipates that the biobased preferred procurement program will provide additional opportunities for businesses and manufacturers to begin supplying products under the designated biobased product categories to Federal agencies and their contractors. However, other businesses and manufacturers that supply only non-qualifying products and do not offer biobased alternatives may experience a decrease in demand from Federal agencies and their contractors. USDA is unable to determine the number of businesses, including small businesses, that may be adversely affected by today's final rule. The final rule, however, will not affect existing purchase orders, nor will it preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new requirements for designated biobased products. Because the extent to which procuring agencies will find the performance, availability and/or price of biobased products acceptable is unknown, it is impossible to quantify the actual economic effect of the rule.
The designation of these 13 product categories provides the benefits outlined in the objectives of section 9002; to increase domestic demand for many agricultural commodities that can serve as feedstocks for production of biobased products, and to spur development of the industrial base through value-added agricultural processing and manufacturing in rural communities. On a national and regional level, today's final rule can result in expanding and strengthening markets for biobased materials used in these product categories.
Like the benefits, the costs of today's final rule have not been quantified. Two types of costs are involved: Costs to producers of products that will compete with the preferred products and costs to Federal agencies to provide procurement preference for the preferred products. Producers of competing products may face a decrease in demand for their products to the extent Federal agencies refrain from purchasing their products. However, it is not known to what extent this may occur. Pre-award procurement costs for Federal agencies may rise minimally as the contracting officials conduct market research to evaluate the performance, availability and price reasonableness of preferred products before making a purchase.
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-602, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
USDA evaluated the potential impacts of its designation of these product categories to determine whether its actions would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the preferred procurement program established under section 9002 applies only to Federal
USDA anticipates that this program will affect entities, both large and small, that manufacture or sell biobased products. For example, the designation of product categories for preferred procurement will provide additional opportunities for businesses to manufacture and sell biobased products to Federal agencies and their contractors. Similar opportunities will be provided for entities that supply biobased materials to manufacturers.
The intent of section 9002 is largely to stimulate the production of new biobased products and to energize emerging markets for those products. Because the program is still in its infancy, however, it is unknown how many businesses will ultimately be affected. While USDA has no data on the number of small businesses that may choose to develop and market biobased products within the product categories designated by this rulemaking, the number is expected to be small. Because biobased products represent a small emerging market, only a small percentage of all manufacturers, large or small, are expected to develop and market biobased products. Thus, the number of small businesses manufacturing biobased products affected by this rulemaking is not expected to be substantial.
The preferred procurement program may decrease opportunities for businesses that manufacture or sell non-biobased products or provide components for the manufacturing of such products. Most manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being designated for preferred procurement in this rule are expected to be included under the following NAICS codes: 321918 (other millwork, including flooring), 324191 (petroleum lubricating oil and grease manufacturing), 325411 (medicinal and botanical manufacturing), 325510 (paint and coating manufacturing), 325612 (polish and other sanitation goods manufacturing), 325620 (toilet preparation manufacturing), 325910 (printing ink manufacturing), 325998 (other miscellaneous chemical products and preparation manufacturing), 326150 (urethane and other foam product manufacturing), and 313113 (thread mill products). USDA obtained information on these 10 NAICS categories from the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census database. USDA found that the Economic Census reports about 6,963 companies within these 10 NAICS categories and that these companies own a total of about 8,139 establishments. Thus, the average number of establishments per company is about 1.2. The Census data also reported that of the 8,139 individual establishments, about 8,096 (99.5 percent) have fewer than 500 employees. USDA also found that the overall average number of employees per company among these industries is about 42, with none of the segments reporting an average of more than 100 employees per company. Thus, nearly all of the businesses fall within the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business (fewer than 500 employees, in most NAICS categories).
USDA does not have data on the potential adverse impacts on manufacturers of non-biobased products within the product categories being designated, but believes that the impact will not be significant. Most of the product categories being designated in this rulemaking are typical consumer products widely used by the general public and by industrial/commercial establishments that are not subject to this rulemaking. Thus, USDA believes that the number of small businesses manufacturing non-biobased products within the product categories being designated and selling significant quantities of those products to government agencies affected by this rulemaking to be relatively low. Also, this final rule will not affect existing purchase orders and it will not preclude procuring agencies from continuing to purchase non-biobased products when biobased products do not meet the availability, performance, or reasonable price criteria. This final rule will also not preclude businesses from modifying their product lines to meet new specifications or solicitation requirements for these products containing biobased materials.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, USDA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While not a factor relevant to determining whether the final rule will have a significant impact for RFA purposes, USDA has concluded that the effect of the rule will be to provide positive opportunities to businesses engaged in the manufacture of these biobased products. Purchase and use of these biobased products by procuring agencies increase demand for these products and result in private sector development of new technologies, creating business and employment opportunities that enhance local, regional, and national economies.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and does not contain policies that would have implications for these rights.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule does not preempt State or local laws, is not intended to have retroactive effect, and does not involve administrative appeals.
This final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of this final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various government levels.
This final rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of UMRA is not required.
For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule Related Notice for 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. This program does not directly affect State and local governments.
Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect “one or more Indian tribes, * * * the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or * * * the distribution of power and
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection under this final rule is currently approved under OMB control number 0503-0011.
USDA is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies, in general, to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. USDA is implementing an electronic information system for posting information voluntarily submitted by manufacturers or vendors on the products they intend to offer for preferred procurement under each designated item. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ron Buckhalt at (202) 205-4008.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Biobased products, Procurement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture is amending 7 CFR chapter XXXII as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8102.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Biobased blast media within this designated product
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Biobased floor coverings within this designated product category can compete with similar floor tile products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated floor tile products containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.17.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Inks for which Federal preferred procurement applies are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Biobased pneumatic equipment lubricants within this designated product category can compete with similar re-refined lubricating oil products with recycled content. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated re-refined lubricating oil products containing recovered materials as products for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.17.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is correcting a final rule establishing revised test procedures for residential clothes washers, published in the
Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department
Elizabeth Kohl, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
DOE published new and amended test procedures for residential clothes washers on March 7, 2012 (hereafter, the “March 2012 final rule”). 77 FR 13888. The current test procedure is codified at appendix J1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B (hereafter, “appendix J1”). The March 2012 final rule amended certain provisions in appendix J1 and also established new clothes washer test procedures, codified in a new appendix J2. Residential clothes washer manufacturers must continue to use appendix J1 to determine compliance of their products with energy conservation standards until the compliance date of any amended standards.
In the preamble to the March 2012 final rule, DOE described its intention to remove an obsolete parenthetical note in section 4.2 of appendix J1, which states that the water factor calculations need not be performed to determine compliance with the energy conservation standards for clothes washers. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) by establishing a water factor standard for top-loading and front-loading standard-size residential clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(A)(ii)); accordingly, this parenthetical note is now obsolete. The calculations in section 4.2 must be performed to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for these clothes washers. In the March 2012 final rule, DOE erroneously omitted regulatory language to remove the obsolete parenthetical note from the water factor calculation section of appendix J1. This final rule corrects section 4.2 of appendix J1 to remove this obsolete note.
In FR Doc. 2012-4819 appearing on page 13888 in the
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration is revising a rule which prohibits a small business investment company (SBIC) from providing financing to an Associate, as defined in the rules, unless it first obtains a conflict of interest exemption from SBA. The revision eliminates the requirement for an exemption in the case of a follow-on investment in a small business concern by an SBIC and an Associate investment fund, where both parties invested previously on the same terms and conditions and where the follow-on investment would also be on the same terms and conditions as well as in the same proportions. In addition, this rule implements two provisions of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended. First, it brings the public notice requirement for conflict of interest transactions into conformity with statutory requirements. Second, it expands the types of investments an SBIC is permitted to make with its “idle funds” (cash that is not immediately needed for fund operations or investments in small business concerns). Finally, the rule makes two technical corrections: Removing an outdated cross-reference; and eliminating a section that exactly duplicates a provision found elsewhere in part 107.
This rule is effective May 4, 2012.
Carol Fendler, Office of Investment, (202) 205-7559 or
On October 14, 2010, SBA published a proposed rule (75 FR 63110) to: (1) Remove the requirement for an SBIC to obtain a conflict of interest exemption from SBA for certain follow-on financings; (2) revise the public notice requirements for conflict of interest financings to conform with statutory requirements under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (SBI Act); and (3) expand the types of investments an SBIC is permitted to make with its “idle funds”, in conformity with the SBI Act. The rule also included two non-substantive technical corrections.
SBA received no relevant comments on the proposed rule, which is being finalized without change. SBA's section-by-section explanation of the proposed regulatory changes, all of which have been implemented in this final rule, is repeated here as a convenience to the reader.
In addition to identifying transactions requiring a conflict of interest exemption, § 107.730 sets forth the circumstances under which an SBIC is permitted to co-invest with its Associates. The primary purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the terms of such co-investments are “fair and equitable” to the SBIC, i.e. that the SBIC is not being disadvantaged relative to an Associate. The co-investment rules include a number of “safe harbor” provisions under which the transaction is presumed to be fair and equitable to the SBIC; one of these safe harbors covers financings where the SBIC and its Associate invest at the same time and on the same terms and conditions. SBIC managers frequently seek to rely on this provision because they are involved in
It became apparent after adoption of the current § 107.730 that certain types of transactions could be characterized as both “co-investment with an Associate” and “financing an Associate”. As with all other transactions that involve the financing of an Associate, SBA has required the SBIC to obtain a prior written exemption even if the financing would fall under the safe harbor for co-investments with Associates.
However, SBA believes the exemption requirement is unnecessarily burdensome for one particular type of transaction: The SBIC and an Associate investment fund (most typically a fund under common management) make an initial investment in a small business under the same terms and conditions, which include the acquisition by each fund of at least a 10% equity interest in the small business. This initial round of financing is a “co-investment with an Associate” and does not require a conflict of interest exemption. However, when the same two parties want to make a follow-on investment in the same small business, again under the same terms and conditions, the second and subsequent round(s) of financing are considered to be “financing an Associate” and do require a prior written exemption. This is because the Associate fund's 10% or greater equity interest causes the small business itself to be defined as an Associate of the SBIC under paragraph (8)(ii) of the definition in § 107.50. While SBA would approve a conflict of interest exemption for a follow-on financing transaction on the same terms and conditions by an SBIC and its Associate fund, the Agency is concerned that the exemption requirement may cause unnecessary delays in making financing available to the small business, and imposes a significant administrative burden on both the SBIC and SBA.
To address this concern, the final rule adds an exception to 13 CFR 107.730(a)(1). This paragraph previously prohibited any financing of an Associate without a prior written conflict of interest exemption. Under the new exception, a prior written exemption is not required for an Associate financing that satisfies all of the following conditions:
1. The small business that will receive the financing is an Associate of the SBIC, pursuant to paragraph (8)(ii) of the Associate definition, only because an Associate investment fund already holds a 10% or greater equity interest in the small business.
2. The SBIC and the Associate fund previously invested in the small business at the same time and on the same terms and conditions.
3. The SBIC and the Associate fund will provide follow-on financing to the small business at the same time and on the same terms and conditions.
4. The SBIC and the Associate fund will provide follow-on financing to the small business in the same proportionate dollar amounts as their respective investments in the previous round of financing (e.g., if the SBIC invested $2 million and the Associate invested $1 million in the previous round, their follow-on investments would be in the same 2:1 ratio).
The revision will allow transactions meeting these specific conditions to be governed only by the co-investment provisions of § 107.730(d) rather than by the “Associate financing” provisions of the current § 107.730(a), thereby returning to SBA's original intent when it promulgated the co-investment rules. SBA expects that this change will help to eliminate delays in making follow-on financing available to small businesses while providing appropriate protection for small business concerns, investors in SBICs and the Federal government.
SBA has also revised § 107.730(g), which requires public notice of all requests by SBICs for conflict of interest exemptions. The previous language required public notice by both SBA (via publication in the
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule also is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or presumptive effect.
For the purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications warranting the preparation of a federalism assessment.
For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, SBA has determined that this rule
When an agency promulgates a final rule following publication of the proposed rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) which describes the potential economic impact of the rule on small entities and alternatives that may minimize that impact. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing a FRFA, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule affects all SBICs, of which there are currently 294, most of which are small entities. Therefore, SBA has determined that this rule will have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, SBA has determined that the impact on entities affected by the rule will not be significant. The new conflict of interest exception eliminates the requirement for SBICs to obtain a conflict of interest exemption for a particular type of transaction. This change is expected to reduce the regulatory burden on SBICs and allow them to close such financing transactions with less delay.
SBA asserts that the economic impact of the rule, if any, will be minimal and entirely beneficial to small SBICs. Accordingly, the Administrator of the SBA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Small Business Administration amends part 107 of title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 681
(b)
(3) Mutual funds, securities, or other instruments that exclusively consist of, or represent pooled assets of, investments described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section; or
(a) * * *
(1) Provide Financing to any of your Associates, except for a Financing to an Associate that meets all of the following conditions:
(i) The Small Business that receives the Financing is your Associate, pursuant to paragraph (8)(ii) of the Associate definition in § 107.50, only because an investment fund that is your Associate holds a 10% or greater equity interest in the Small Business.
(ii) You and the Associate investment fund previously invested in the Small Business at the same time and on the same terms and conditions.
(iii) You and the Associate investment fund are providing follow-on financing to the Small Business at the same time, on the same terms and conditions, and in the same proportionate dollar amounts as your respective investments in the previous round(s) of financing (for example, if you invested $2 million and your Associate invested $1 million in the previous round, your respective follow-on investments would be in the same 2:1 ratio).
(g)
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
Interim Final Rule; Correction.
This document contains a correction to the Schedule of Fees for Consular Services, Department of State and Overseas Embassies and Consulates published in the
Effective April 13, 2012.
Special Assistant, Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State; phone: 202-663-1576, telefax: 202-663-2526; email:
The interim final rule published on March 29, 2012, 77 FR 18907-18914, is corrected as follows:
1. In the chart on pg. 18912 detailing the proposed fee changes, the total estimated change in annual fees collected amount, at the bottom of the far right column, is corrected so that the decimal places are correct. The correct figure is 94,813,970.
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 900 to 1899, revised as of July 1, 2011, on page 365, in § 1630.2, in paragraph (o)(1)(ii), remove the words “a qualified individual with a disability” and add, in their place, “an individual with a disability who is qualified”.
In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1927 to End, revised as of July 1, 2011, on page 933, § 4007.5 is reinstated to read as follows:
The PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that a submission under this part was filed with the PBGC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal from Mile Marker 295.7 to Mile Marker 297.0 at various times from May 1, 2012 until June 6, 2012. This action is necessary to protect the waterways, waterway users, and vessels from hazards associated with the Army Corp of Engineers' barrier testing operations. During these tests, the Army Corp of Engineers' will conduct various safety tests to include barge effects and field strength at depth measurement.
During any of the below listed enforcement periods, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on May 1-4, 2012, and again on June 5-6, 2012.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email CWO Jon Grob, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, telephone 414-747-7188, email address
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone between Mile Marker 295.7 to Mile Marker 297.0 on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Enforcement will occur from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on:
(1) On May 1-4, 2012.
(2) On June 5-6, 2012.
This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has determined that the Army Corp of Engineers' fish suppression operations to clear all fish between barrier IIA and IIB, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers scheduled maintenance shutdown of Barrier IIB, poses risks to life and property. The combination of vessel traffic and the fish removal operations in the water makes the controlling of vessels through the impacted portion of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal necessary to prevent injury and property loss.
In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Correcting amendments.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a document in the
Effective date: April 4, 2012.
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or by email at
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a final rule in the
Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 33 CFR part 334 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 17 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). Two of these chemical substances are subject to TSCA consent orders issued by EPA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of these 17 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.
This rule is effective on June 4, 2012. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on April 18, 2012.
Written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs must be received on or before May 4, 2012 (see Unit VI. of the
For additional information on related reporting requirement dates, see Units I.A., VI., and VII. of the
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0942, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA is promulgating these SNURs using direct final procedures. These SNURs will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of a chemical substance for any activity designated by these SNURs as a significant new use. Receipt of such notices allows EPA to assess risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs. Additional rationale and background to these rules are more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA sections 5(h)(1), 5(h)(2), 5(h)(3), and 5(h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 17 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 17 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:
• PMN number.
• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).
• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, for non-section 5(e) SNURs (i.e., SNURs without TSCA section 5(e) consent orders), the basis for the SNUR.
• Toxicity concerns.
• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more information).
• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.
The regulatory text section of this rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (i.e., limits on manufacture and importation volume) and other uses designated in this rule, may be claimed as CBI. Unit IX. discusses a procedure companies may use to ascertain whether a proposed use constitutes a significant new use.
This rule includes two PMN substances (P-10-486 and P-10-487) that are subject to “risk-based” consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) in which EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Those consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “5(e) SNURs” on these PMN substances are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160, and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders. The 5(e) SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders.
This rule also includes SNURs on 15 PMN substances (P-09-248, P-11-33, P-11-34, P-11-188, P-11-316, P-11-333, P-11-424, P-11-511, P-11-546, P-11-578, P-11-580, P-11-591, P-11-608, P-11-637, and P-11-662) that are not subject to consent orders under TSCA section 5(e). In these cases, for a variety of reasons, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e). However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” These so-called “non-5(e) SNURs” are promulgated pursuant to § 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all non-5(e) SNURs issued under § 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, “(i) are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities to the premanufacture notice, and (ii) may be accompanied by changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation to the health or environmental concerns identified” for the PMN substance.
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for two of the 17 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. These SNURs are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160 (see Unit II.).
In the other 15 cases, where the uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit IV.
EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:
• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.
• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing, importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.
• EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers, importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.
• EPA will ensure that all manufacturers, importers, and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.
Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Inventory. Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at
EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule, as described in § 721.160(c)(3) and § 721.170(d)(4). In accordance with § 721.160(c)(3)(ii) and § 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), the effective date of this rule is June 4, 2012 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments before May 4, 2012.
If EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before May 4, 2012, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date. EPA will then issue a proposed SNUR for the chemical substance(s) on which adverse or critical comments were received, providing a 30-day period for public comment.
This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.
Significant new use designations for a chemical substance are legally established as of the date of publication of this direct final rule, April 4, 2012.
To establish a significant “new” use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. TSCA section 5(e) consent orders have been issued for two chemical substances and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from undertaking activities which EPA is designating as significant new uses. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no other person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. For chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted at this time, EPA concludes that the uses are not ongoing. However, EPA recognizes that prior to the effective date of the rule, when chemical substances identified in this SNUR are added to the TSCA Inventory, other persons may engage in a significant new use as defined in this rule before the effective date of the rule. However, 7 of the 17 chemical substances contained in this rule have CBI chemical identities, and since EPA has received a limited number of post-
As discussed in the April 24, 1990 SNUR, EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the date of publication of this direct final rule rather than as of the effective date of the rule. If uses begun after publication were considered ongoing rather than new, it would be difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements because a person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the rule became effective, and then argue that the use was ongoing before the effective date of the rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial manufacture, import, or processing of the chemical substances regulated through this SNUR will have to cease any such activity before the effective date of this rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUR notice requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all extensions, expires.
EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this SNUR before the effective date. If a person meets the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person is considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR.
EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:
1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).
2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).
In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain testing, Unit IV. lists those tests. Unit IV. also lists recommended testing for non-5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to
In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for two of the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study at least 14 weeks (earlier TSCA section 5(e) consent orders required submissions at least 12 weeks) before reaching the specified production limit. Listings of the tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders are included in Unit IV. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture, import, or processing.
The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.
SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.
By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1).
Under these procedures a manufacturer, importer, or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer, importer, or processor must show that it has a
If EPA determines that the use identified in the
According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in § 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0942.
This rule establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true: (1) A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR and (2) submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this rule. As such, EPA has determined that this rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
This rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 135
15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board). This revision concerns two regulations that reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen (NO
EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0544 for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4150,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 40652), EPA proposed to approve title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), section 2025 (“Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles”) (referred to herein as the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) “Truck and Bus Regulation” and 13 CCR section 2027 (“In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks”) (referred to herein as CARB's “Drayage Truck Regulation”) as revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We proposed to approve CARB's regulations under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”). In today's action, EPA is taking final action to approve CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation.
EPA proposed to approve the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation based on the versions of the amended regulations released for public comment on May 19, 2011 and submitted by CARB to EPA in connection with a request to “parallel process” the regulations for SIP approval purposes. Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule provides detailed information on the State's procedural steps culminating in the public release of the proposed Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation that formed the basis for EPA's proposed approval, on the amendments to the original versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation (which had been originally adopted by CARB in December 2008 and December 2007, respectively), and on EPA's “parallel process” procedure used to evaluate and propose action on proposed SIP revisions prior to final adoption and submittal to EPA. The reader is directed to the July 11, 2011 proposed rule for this detailed information. See 76 FR at 40653-40654.
The regulations were developed by CARB to reduce NO
CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation (i.e., 13 CCR section 2025) requires fleet
Key concepts used in the Truck and Bus Regulation include “2010 Model Year (MY) Emissions Equivalent Engine,” “PM Best Available Control Technology” (BACT), and “Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy” (VDECS). These concepts are described in detail in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule on pages 40654 and 40655 and the reader is directed there for more information on these concepts.
As described in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, the basic requirements of the regulation are set forth in subsections (e), (f), and (g) of the regulation. Under these subsections, different sets of requirements are established for subject vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000 lbs or less [subsection (f)] and subject vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 lbs [subsection (g)]. Under subsection (f), with certain exceptions, subject vehicles with a GVWR of 26,000 lbs or less must, starting January 1, 2015, be equipped with a “2010 model year emissions equivalent engine” pursuant to the schedule shown in table 1. School buses, that otherwise would be subject to subsection (f), are subject to a different set of requirements in subsection (k). Under subsection (k), with certain exceptions, all schools buses must comply with PM BACT by 2014.
Under subsection (g), with certain exceptions, subject vehicles with a GVWR more than 26,000 lbs must, starting January 1, 2012, meet the PM Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement and must upgrade to a 2010 MY emissions equivalent engine pursuant to the schedule shown in table 2. Fleets with vehicles otherwise subject to subsection (g) may opt for a different phase-in compliance schedule for PM BACT but must comply with section 2025(g) by 2023. See 13 CCR section 2025, subsections (h) (“Small Fleet Compliance Option”) and (i) (“Phase-in Option”).
Section 2025(j) allows credits for early PM retrofits, fleets that have downsized, early addition of newer vehicles, hybrid vehicles, alternative fueled vehicles and vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition engines that can allow delayed requirements for other heavier trucks in the fleet. Fleet owners are required to meet the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subsections (r) and (s). Credits are not transferrable except with appropriate documentation of a change of business form approved by the CARB Executive Officer (EO).
Subsection (l) of the Truck and Bus Regulation provides requirements for drayage trucks and utility vehicles. Drayage trucks subject to the Drayage Truck Regulation may be included in the fleet to comply with the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation only if all drayage trucks are included. Starting January 1, 2023, all drayage truck owners must comply with the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation.
Other provisions in the Truck and Bus Regulation include certain requirements and exemptions for agricultural fleets [13 CCR 2025(m)]; requirements for single-engine and two-engine sweepers [13 CCR 2025(n)]; requirements for a new fleet and changes in an existing fleet [13 CCR 2025(o)]; certain exemptions, delays, and extensions [13 CCR 2025(p)]; special provisions for VDECS and experimental diesel emission control strategies [13 CCR 2025(q)]; detailed reporting requirements [13 CCR 2025(r)]; recordkeeping requirements [13 CCR 2025(s)]; provisions for auditing of records [13 CCR section 2025(t)]; provisions for record retention [13 CCR 2025(u)]; provisions establishing CARB's right of entry [13 CCR 2025(v)]; provisions requiring disclosures by sellers [13 CCR 2025(w)]; compliance requirements [13 CCR 2025(x)]; provisions for CARB issuance of certificates of reported compliance [13 CCR 2025(y)]; and penalties for non-compliance [13 CCR section 2025(z)]. The reader is directed to the proposed rule (pages 40654-40656) for additional information on the content of the Truck and Bus Regulation.
CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation (13 CCR section 2027) applies to owners and operators of certain in-use, on-road, diesel-fueled, heavy-duty drayage vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds defined as “drayage trucks.” Drayage trucks are those that are used for transporting cargo, such as containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods and that operate on or transgress through port or intermodal rail yard property for the purpose of loading, unloading or transporting cargo, including transporting empty containers and chassis; or that operate off port or intermodal rail yard property transporting cargo or empty containers or chassis that originated from or is destined to a port or intermodal rail yard property. The regulation also applies to owners and operators of motor carriers that dispatch drayage trucks that operate in California, marine or port terminals, intermodal rail yards, and rail yard and port authorities. Owners and operators are subject to the Drayage Truck Regulation through December 31, 2022. Starting January 1, 2023, drayage trucks will be subject to the Truck and Bus Regulation.
As described in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, section 2027(d) of the Drayage Truck Regulation establishes the requirements and compliance deadlines, grouped into two phases, for drayage trucks. Phase 1 of the regulation [section 2027(d)(1)] required, by December 31, 2009, all drayage trucks with a GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds to be equipped with a 1994-2003 MY engine certified to California or federal emission standards and a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or a 2004 or newer MY engine certified to California or federal emission standards. Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds but with 2004-2006 MY engines are allowed extra time to be equipped with a level 3 VDECS (by January 1, 2012 for subject vehicles with MY 2004 engines and by January 1, 2013 for vehicles with MY 2005-2006 engines). Under Phase 1, by January 1, 2012, all drayage trucks with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs to 33,000 pounds must be equipped with a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions while operating in the South Coast Air Basin. Phase 2 [section 2027(d)(2)] requires that, beginning on January 1, 2014, all drayage trucks must be equipped with a 1994 or newer MY engine that meets or exceeds 2007 MY California or federal emissions standards.
Drayage truck owners must register with the CARB Drayage Truck Registry, a database that contains information on all trucks that conduct business at California ports and intermodal rail yards. See section 2027(e). The Drayage Truck Regulation provides for the same types of penalties for non-compliance as described above for the Truck and Bus Regulation. See section 2027(g). Sections 2027(h) (“Right of Entry”) and 2027(i) (“Enforcement”) authorize and support efforts by CARB and other officials to ensure compliance with the regulation. Section 2023(j) is a sunset clause that provides that, starting January 1, 2023, drayage trucks would no longer be subject to the provisions of
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we described the basis for our evaluation of the two regulations. Specifically, we noted that SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the Act [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must provide necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out such SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal to State law from carrying out such SIP) [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)]; must be adopted by a State after reasonable notice and public hearing [see CAA section 110(l)], and must not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the Act [see CAA section 110(l)].
In our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we proposed approval of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation based on our conclusion that the regulation would meet the applicable procedural and substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act for SIPs and SIP revisions described in the previous paragraph. The following paragraphs summarize our findings in this regard from our proposed rule.
First, with respect to the procedural requirements of CAA section 110(l), we noted the extensive public process that CARB conducted prior to the adoption of the original versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation in December 2008 and the Drayage Truck Regulation in December 2007 and the extensive public process that CARB conducted for the recent amendments to the two regulations. We anticipated that we would conclude that CARB had met the applicable procedural requirements for SIP revisions upon submittal by CARB of the final adopted regulations as a SIP revision with the necessary public process documentation.
On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the final adopted versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage Truck Regulation to EPA as a revision to the California SIP, and on December 9 and 15, 2011, CARB supplemented the September 21, 2011 submittal with evidence of approval of the regulations by the California Office of Administrative Law. CARB's September 21, 2011 submittal, as supplemented on December 9 and 15, 2011, includes the documentation of the adoption and public process for the amendments to the two regulations that we had anticipated in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule. Thus, we conclude that CARB has met the procedural requirements under CAA section 110(l) for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption of SIPs and SIP revisions.
Second, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we described the general and specific authority granted to CARB under the California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement the two regulations.
Third, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we evaluated the enforceability of both regulations with respect to applicability and exemptions; standard of conduct and compliance dates; sunset provisions; discretionary provisions; and test methods, recordkeeping and reporting,
• The regulations would be sufficiently clear as to which persons and which vehicles or engines are affected by the regulations;
• The regulations would be sufficiently specific so that the persons affected by the regulations would be fairly on notice as to what the requirements and related compliance dates are;
• The sunset clause in the Drayage Truck Regulation would be acceptable because it merely transfers CARB's regulatory authority over drayage trucks from the Drayage Truck Regulation to the Truck and Bus Regulation;
• The “director's discretion” provisions in the two regulations would be sufficiently limited in scope and application; and
• The regulations would require use of appropriate test methods and would include adequate recordkeeping and reporting requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements.
Fourth, in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, we noted that the State's 2007 State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM
Based on the evaluation summarized above, we concluded in our July 11, 2011 proposal that the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage Truck Regulation would be consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, policies and guidance. The reader is directed to our July 11, 2011 proposed rule (pages 40657-40659) for a more detailed discussion of our evaluation of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation.
Lastly, we indicated in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule that if the State substantially revises the version of the Truck and Bus Regulation or the Drayage Truck Regulation that was released for public comment by the State and that was submitted for “parallel processing,” this would result in the need for additional proposed rulemaking on the regulations by EPA. On September 21, 2011, CARB submitted the final versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation, which were adopted by the CARB Executive Officer on September 19, 2011, to EPA as a revision to the California SIP.
The two final adopted regulations essentially mirror the versions of the regulations that had been released for public comment and that had been submitted to EPA for parallel processing, and on which EPA had based the Agency's proposed approval. Because the two final adopted regulations are essentially the same as the versions of the rules on which the proposed approval was based, we can rely on our evaluation of the proposed versions of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation, as set forth in our July 11,
Under California law, once adopted, a regulation must still be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to take effect. CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation, as amended, were approved by OAL on December 14, 2011 and November 9, 2011, respectively, and became effective under State law on the same days as their OAL approvals. On December 9, 2011 and December 15, 2011, CARB submitted evidence of approval of the final, adopted Drayage Truck Regulation and Truck and Bus Regulation, respectively, by the California OAL to EPA as supplements to CARB's September 21, 2011 SIP revision, and therefore, CARB has now provided EPA with all of the documentation necessary for EPA to take this final action on the two subject regulations.
Our July 11, 2011 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. During this period, we did not receive any comments on our proposed action on CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation. However, we received three comment letters in connection with our proposed action on CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation. The comments and our responses are provided below.
Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal requirements. See section 110(k) of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. The above comments from the Individual Trucking Company do not challenge EPA's conclusion that the Drayage Truck Regulation meets all applicable CAA requirements but rather contend, for various reasons, that Phase 2 of CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation is too costly and may not be economically or technologically feasible. However, such considerations cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by a state as part of a SIP [see
• A letter from WSA to CARB, dated December 28, 2010, objecting to CARB's December 17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase 2 requirements under the Drayage Truck Regulation.
• A letter from Horizon Freight System, Inc. to CARB, dated December 29, 2010, objecting to CARB's December 17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase 2 requirements under the Drayage Truck Regulation.
• A letter from Diesel Emissions Service to WSA, dated December 29, 2010, discussing the lack of an available EPA- or CARB-verified retrofit system that would allow the operator of a 1994-2006 model year engine to meet the requirements of Phase 2 of CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation.
• An undated letter from an Oakland City Councilmember to CARB objecting to CARB's failure to extend the Phase 2 compliance dates in the Drayage Truck Regulation consistent with the compliance date extensions adopted by CARB in the Truck and Bus Regulation.
• An undated WSA fact sheet concerning CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation that was circulated after CARB's December 17, 2010 decision not to delay the Phase 2 requirements under the Drayage Truck Regulation.
• A WSA request to CARB submitted May 16, 2011 requesting that CARB reconsider the Proposed Amendments to the Drayage Truck Regulation of October 2010 that would have aligned scheduled upgrades for drayage trucks with other diesel trucks under CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation.
• A letter to CARB dated August 3, 2011 from an attorney retained by WSA concerning the costs of implementation of Phase 2 of CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation as well as CARB's purported failure to prepare a study on the economic impacts on business under California Government Code 11346,
The one specific comment that does relate to EPA's action is directed to CARB, rather than EPA, but it challenges CARB's decision not to extend Phase 2 compliance dates on state law grounds. SIP rules must be adopted by states in compliance with their own laws because a state must provide necessary assurances that it has adequate legal authority to carry out the SIP revision and, where a state has not followed its own laws in adopting a rule subsequently submitted as a SIP revision, such assurances generally cannot be provided. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(E).
In this instance, the commenter accuses CARB of failing to follow the mandates of state law proscribed by California Government Code section 11346,
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA and for the reasons given above and in our July 11, 2011 proposed rule, EPA is taking final action to approve the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation into the California SIP. The specific rules approved into the SIP in today's action are:
• 13 CCR section 2025 (“Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles”), as adopted by the CARB Executive Officer on September 19, 2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, and made effective under State law on December 14, 2011; and
• 13 CCR section 2027 (“In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks”), as adopted by the CARB Executive Officer on September 19, 2011, submitted on September 21, 2011, and made effective under State law on November 9, 2011.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 4, 2012. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(409) New regulation was submitted on December 9, 2011, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(
(
(410) New regulation was submitted on December 15, 2011, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′-(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated, CAS Reg. No. 1283712-50-4; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Clariant Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-ethylhexyl ester, telomer with 1-dodecanethiol, ethenylbenzene and 2-methyloxirane polymer with oxirane monoether with 1,2-propanediol mono(2-methyl-2-propenoate), hydrogen 2-sulfobutanedioate, sodium salt, 2, 2′-(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylpropanenitrile]-initiated on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective April 4, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 4, 2012, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at
Alganesh Debesai, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8353; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 4, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0975, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). The polymer conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,212 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, the polymer meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to the polymer.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that the polymer could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of the polymer is 1,212 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since the polymer conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found the polymer to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that the polymer does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of the polymer. EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the polymer.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for the polymer.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of the polymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Although this action does not require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
In Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 430 to 481, revised as of October 1, 2011, on page 538, the heading for part 480 is revised to read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 1, 2012, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., August 25, 2012.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The B season allowance of the 2012 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 5,797 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the B season pollock allowance by 1,159 mt to reflect the underharvest of the A seasonal apportionment in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised B season allowance of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 6,956 mt (5,797 mt plus 1,159 mt).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2012 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 6,756 mt and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 29, 2012.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
In proposed rule document 2012—6151 beginning on page 15848 in the issue of Friday, March 16, 2012 make the following correction:
On page 15902, in the second column, in § 93.418(d)(2)(iv)(A), in the first line “A “C⁁N” mark” should read “A “C^N” mark”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.
The FAA is correcting a notice of proposed rulemaking that published in the
The comment period will close on May 4, 2012.
Melissa Loughlin, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-204, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-4055; facsimile (202) 267-5075; email
On March 5, 2012, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (Retrospective Regulatory Review)” (77 FR 13027).
In that NPRM, the FAA proposed to update, simplify, and streamline rules of practice and procedure for filing and adjudicating complaints against federally-assisted airports. The proposed requirements would improve efficiency by enabling parties to file submissions with the FAA electronically, and by incorporating modern business practices into how the FAA handles complaints. If adopted, the amendment would reflect changes in applicable laws and regulations, and apply lessons learned since the existing rules were implemented in 1996.
In FR Doc. 2012-4993, beginning on page 13027 in the
On page 13027, in the second column and fourth line under the NPRM's publication, correct “Notice No. 12-01” to read as “Notice No. 12-02”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Eurocopter France (EC) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, SA-366G1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of a cracked main rotor mast nut. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to complete failure of the mast nut, resulting in failure of the rotor mast and loss of control of the helicopter. This proposed AD would require replacing the main rotor mast nut with an airworthy main rotor mast nut. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the main rotor mast and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 4, 2012.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3775, or at
Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.: 2006-0368R1, dated December 2, 2010, and corrected December 8, 2010 (AD 2006-0368R1), to correct an unsafe condition for the EC Model SA 365 N, SA 365 N1, AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, SA 366 G1, EC 155 B, and EC 155 B1 helicopters. EASA advises that a cracked (partially failed) main rotor mast nut was discovered during a complete overhaul of a main rotor mast. The start of the crack was related to circular scoring found in the nut threads. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, “could lead to complete failure of the mast nut, possibly resulting in failure of the rotor mast and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.” To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued Emergency AD 2006-0368-E, dated December 6, 2006 (AD 2006-0368-E), to require repetitive inspections of the mast nut, and replacement of the nut if cracked. Since issuance of AD 2006-0368-E, EC has developed modification (MOD) 0762C42 to improve the strength of the mast nut by changing its material. Replacing mast nut part number (P/N) 360A31-1020-20 with mast nut P/N 365A31-2060-20 or 365A31-2060-21 (as applicable to helicopter type) “constitutes an optional terminating action” for the repetitive inspection requirements. For this reason, EASA issued AD 2006-0368R1 “to inform which helicopters remain subject to inspections and replacement requirements” of the AD.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We reviewed EC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 62.00.23, Revision 1, for Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters; EC ASB 62.12, Revision 1, for Model SA-366G1 helicopters; and EC ASB 62A014, Revision 1, for Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters, all dated Oct 27, 2010. The ASBs contain procedures for repetitively inspecting the mast nut for a crack or failure. The ASBs remove any helicopter with MOD 0762C42 incorporated from the applicability of the ASB. EASA classified this ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2006-0368R1 to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.
This proposed AD would require, for EC Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, SA366G1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters, certificated in any category, with a mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 installed:
• For EC Models SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3, prior to accumulating 1,650 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within the next 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut of a different P/N.
• For EC Model SA-366G1, prior to accumulating 990 hours TIS or within the next 30 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut of a different P/N.
• For EC Models EC 155B and EC155B1, prior to accumulating 660 hours TIS or within the next 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut of a different P/N.
The EASA AD allows for either inspecting the mast nut at regular intervals or replacing the mast nut, while the proposed AD requires replacing the mast nut. The EASA AD uses flight hours of the main rotor mast assembly, while the proposed AD uses TIS of the helicopter.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that replacing the mast nut with an airworthy mast nut would require 32 work-hours, at an average labor cost of $85 per work-hour. Parts would cost about $3,100. Based on these costs, we estimate a total cost per helicopter of $5,820, and a total cost for the U.S. operator fleet of $174,600.
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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new Airworthiness Directive (AD):
This AD applies to Eurocopter France (EC) Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, SA-366G1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, and EC155B1 helicopters with a mast nut, part number (P/N) 360A31-1020-20, installed.
This AD describes the unsafe condition as a cracked main rotor mast nut. This condition could result in failure of the rotor mast and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) For EC Models SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3, prior to accumulating 1,650 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within the next 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut that has a P/N other than P/N 360A31-1020-20.
(2) For EC Model SA-366G1, prior to accumulating 990 hours TIS or within the next 30 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut that has a P/N other than P/N 360A31-1020-20.
(3) For EC Models EC 155B and EC155B1, prior to accumulating 660 hours TIS or within the next 50 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, remove mast nut P/N 360A31-1020-20 and replace with an airworthy mast nut that has a P/N other than P/N 360A31-1020-20.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; 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) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 62.00.23, No. 62.12, and No. 62A014, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. All of the service bulletins are Revision 1 and all are dated Oct 27, 2010. For service information identified in this AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3775, or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in in European Aviation Safety Agency AD No.: 2006-0368R1, dated December 2, 2010, and corrected December 8, 2010.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, main rotor drive system.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We are proposing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK C-1 helicopters equipped with a certain external-hoist system (hoist system) by requiring either deactivating the entire hoist system or deactivating the hoist system cable cutter function on the hoist system operator control handle (operator handle). This AD was prompted by an uncommanded activation of the hoist cable cutter function on an MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopter. This AD is intended to prevent uncommanded cutting of the hoist cable and subsequent injury to persons being lifted by the hoist.
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 American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052, telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323, fax (972) 641-3775, or at
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth Texas 76137.
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, reports that during a recent incident involving an MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopter, the cable cut-off function of the rescue hoist system was triggered uncommanded, and the hoist cable was cut. The subsequent investigation revealed that this was caused by a malfunction within the rescue hoist system's remote control handle assembly while extending the hoist boom. EASA advises that this condition, if not corrected, “will lead to detachment of an external load or person from the helicopter hoist, possibly resulting in personal injury, or injury to persons on the ground.”
As a result, EASA issued EASA AD No.: 2011-0126, dated July 1, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-0126), to correct this unsafe condition in the ECD Model MBB-BK117 A-1, MBB-BK117 A-3, MBB-BK117 B-1, MBB-BK117 B-2, and MBB-BK117 C-1 helicopters equipped with a hoist system, Part Number (P/N) 117-80403 or 117-804061. EASA AD 2011-0126 requires deactivation of the affected external hoist system by pulling and securing the related circuit breakers, or by removing the hoist boom.
After EASA AD 2011-0126 was issued, it was discovered that pulling the circuit breaker WARN ANN II degraded the annunciator system's redundant power supply, so that pilots could not be warned of a second helicopter system failure. Prompted by these findings, EASA issued superseding EASA AD No.: 2011-0131, dated July 8, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-0131), to require pulling only three circuit breakers, (CABLE CUTTER, WINCH CONT, and WINCH BOOM,) while circuit breaker WARN ANN II remains inserted.
EASA advises that since EASA AD 2011-0131 was issued “a corrective action has been developed to establish an adequate safety level, while a terminating action is under investigation but currently not available.” EASA subsequently issued the current EASA AD No.: 2011-0148, dated August 5, 2011 (EASA AD 2011-0148), which retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0131 and requires modification of the helicopter wiring and operator handle P/N 76803, a revision to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual and Supplement, and repetitive inspections of the operator handle. EASA AD 2011-0148 also requires implementing a 10-year time frame for overhaul of the operator handle.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs. The hoist cable that extends from an MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopter, used typically to pick up people or goods, often during emergencies, was cut with no command or push of the button from anyone aboard the aircraft. The cause was a malfunction in the cable hoist system. This situation could harm anyone being lifted in the rescue hoist.
ECD has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-80-166, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011 (ASB). The ASB specifies the deactivation of the cable cutter function on the operator handle. After the cable cutter function on the operator handle has been deactivated, the rescue winch may be used.
This proposed AD would require either deactivation of the entire hoist system or deactivation of the hoist system cable cutter function on the operator handle within 30 days or before the system is used again, whichever comes first. Deactivating the entire hoist system would be accomplished by either pulling and securing three circuit breakers or by removing the hoist boom from the helicopter. Deactivating the external hoist system cable cutter function on the operator handle would be accomplished by modifying the helicopter wiring and the operator handle P/N 76803, repetitively inspecting the operator handle, and replacing the operator handle if damaged. This AD also would prohibit installation of the affected hoist systems on any helicopter, unless the installation complies with this AD's requirements, and would prohibit installation of the operator handle on any helicopter unless it has been modified in accordance with this AD.
This AD would also apply to the Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model MBB-BK 117 A-4 model. The EASA AD makes no mention of this model. The EASA AD also applies to the MBB-BK 117 A-1 model. Eurocopter informs us that the MBB-BK 117 A-1 model no longer exists, so we did not include it in our proposed AD. The EASA AD requires temporary revisions to the Rotorcraft Flight Manual and its supplements; this proposed AD does not. The EASA AD requires overhaul of
We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a terminating action to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this terminating action is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 12 helicopters of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
•
•
•
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters with an external hoist system (hoist system) Part Number (P/N) 117-80403 or P/N 117-804061 installed, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an uncommanded cutting of the hoist cable. This condition could result in loss of the helicopter hoist and load and subsequent injury to persons being lifted by the hoist.
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) Before the next hoist operation or within 30 days, whichever comes first, comply with either paragraph (1)(i), (1)(ii), or (1)(iii):
(i) Deactivate the hoist system by pulling the CABLE CUTTER, WINCH CONT, and WINCH BOOM circuit breakers and securing each circuit breaker with a cable tie; or
(ii) Deactivate the hoist system by removing the hoist boom from the helicopter; or
(iii) Deactivate the external hoist operator handle cable-cutter function by accomplishing the following:
(A) Modify the helicopter wiring and the operator handle, P/N 76803, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraph 3.B.1 (b), of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117-80-166, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011 (ASB).
(B) Inspect the operator handle P/N 76803 and the coiled cable of the operator handle for damage in accordance with Paragraph 3.B.1.(a)(2) of the ASB. Damage is also defined as any condition that could prevent the part's ability to perform its intended function.
(2) Before installing an affected hoist system on any helicopter, comply with Paragraph (1) of the Required Actions section of this AD.
(3) Before installing an operator handle P/N 76803 on any helicopter, comply with Paragraph (1)(iii)(A) of the Required Actions section of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; 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.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2597, Equipment/furnishing system wiring.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations and safety zones for marine events on the navigable waters within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound zone for regattas, fireworks displays and swim events. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. Entering into, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within these regulated areas would be prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 4, 2012.
Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 25, 2012.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2012-0111 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, 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-2012-0111), 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 April 25, 2012 using one of the four methods specified under
The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 454, 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
This temporary rule proposes to establish special local regulations and safety zones in order to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during regattas, fireworks displays and swim events.
This temporary rule proposes special local regulations for two regattas, and safety zones for thirteen fireworks displays and two swimming events set to take place within the COTP Sector Long Island Sound Zone. These events are scheduled to take place between June and August of 2012.
A safety zone is proposed for each fireworks display listed in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0111 including all navigable waters within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform.
A safety zone is proposed for each swim event listed in TABLE 2 to § 165.T01.0111 including all navigable waters within the defined swim area.
A special local regulation is proposed for each regatta listed in TABLE 1 to § 100.35T01-0111 including all navigable waters associated with each event's location.
Exact locations with coordinates are listed in the regulatory text below List of Subjects.
All fireworks events would be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on the date specified in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0111. All other regulated areas will be enforced during the dates and times listed with the event details in their respective table. In three cases, the
Because large numbers of spectator vessels are expected to congregate around the location of these events, these regulated areas are necessary to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by them; including large numbers of swimmers, hard to see and unstable small boats, unexpected pyrotechnics detonation, and burning debris. This proposed rule would temporarily establish regulated areas to restrict vessel movement around the location of each event to reduce the safety risks associated with them.
During the enforcement periods, persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the regulated areas unless specifically authorized by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Persons and vessels would be able to request authorization to enter, transit through, remain, anchor or moor within the regulated areas by contacting the COTP Sector Long Island Sound by telephone at (203) 468-4401, or designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, remain, anchor or moor within any of the regulated areas is granted, all persons and vessels receiving authorization would be required to comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
The Coast Guard COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representatives will enforce the regulated areas. These designated representatives are comprised of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas.
To aid the public in identifying the launch platforms; fireworks barges used for these displays will have a sign on their port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY.” This sign will consist of 10 inch high by 1.5 inch wide red lettering on a white background. Shore launch sites will display a sign labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” with the same dimensions.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking would not be a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated areas will be of limited duration and cover only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore, vessels may transit the navigable waterways outside of the regulated areas. Persons or vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the regulated areas during the enforcement periods stated for each event listed below in the List of Subjects.
The temporary special local regulations and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The regulated areas will be of limited size and of short duration, vessels that can safely do so may navigate in all other portions of the waterways except for the areas designated as regulated areas, and vessels requiring entry into the regulated areas may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Additionally, before the effective period, notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Joseph Graun, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, (203) 468-4544,
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
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
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recording requirements, Waterways.
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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233.
2. Add Sec. 100.35T01-0111 to read as follows:
(a) Regulations. (1) The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in TABLE 1 to § 100.35T01-0111. These regulations will be enforced for the duration of each event, on the dates indicated. Notifications will be made to the local maritime community through all appropriate means such as Local Notice to Mariners or Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events. First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners can be found at:
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound.
(3) Spectators. All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
(c) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated areas
(d) Vessels may not transit the regulated areas without the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the event.
(e) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during the effective dates and times, or dates and times as modified through the Local Notice to Mariners, unless authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
(f) The COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property.
(g) For all regattas listed, vessels not participating in the event, swimmers, and personal watercraft of any nature are prohibited from entering or moving within the regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. Vessels within the regulated area must be at anchor within a designated spectator area or moored to a waterfront facility in a way that will not interfere with the progress of the event.
3. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 454, 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
4. Add § 165.T01-0111 to read as follows:
(a) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the fireworks displays, air shows, and swim events listed in TABLE 1 and TABLE 2 of § 165.T01-0111.
These regulations will be enforced for the duration of each event. Notifications will be made to the local maritime community through all appropriate means such as Local Notice to Mariners or Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the events. Mariners should consult the
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
(1) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
(2) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound.
(3) Spectators. All persons and vessels not registered with the event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
(c) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the regulated areas should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector LIS command center) or the designated
(d) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during the effective dates and times, or dates and times as modified through the Local Notice to Mariners, unless authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
(e) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(f) The COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property.
(g) The regulated area for all fireworks displays listed in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0111 is that area of navigable waters within a 1000 foot radius of the launch platform or launch site for each fireworks display, unless otherwise noted in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0111 or modified in USCG First District Local Notice to Mariners at:
(h) Fireworks barges used in these locations will also have a sign on their port and starboard side labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY”. This sign will consist of 10 inch high by 1.5 inch wide red lettering on a white background. Shore sites used in these locations will display a sign labeled “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” with the same dimensions. These zones will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. each day a barge with a “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” sign on the port and starboard side is on-scene or a “FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY” sign is posted in a location listed in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0111.
(i) Enforcement period:
1. Each fireworks display will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on the respective dates listed in Table 1 of § 165.T01-0111.
2. Each swim event will be enforced during the date and time listed in Table 2 of § 165.T01-0111.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Navy requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) disestablish the naval restricted area located in the waters of Rhode Island Sound, 4 nautical miles due south of Lands End in Newport, Rhode Island. The restricted area was established on August 31, 1987. The purpose of the restricted area was to establish a practice minefield and conduct mine detection and mine sweeping exercises. As a result of the discontinued use of this area by Naval Station Newport, the Navy has requested the restricted area be disestablished.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2012-0001, by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922 or Ms. Angela C. Repella, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, at 978-318-8639.
The purpose of this regulatory action is to disestablish a restricted area that is no longer needed by Naval Station Newport, because use of the practice minefield and conducting mine detection and mine sweeping exercises in that area has been discontinued.
The Corps authority to disestablish this restricted area is Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3).
By letter received on May 5, 2011, the Commander of Naval Station Newport has requested the removal of the restricted area in Rhode Island Sound, 4 nautical miles due south of Lands End in Newport, Rhode Island. The request was made due to the discontinued use of the restricted area. In response to this request by the U.S. Navy, and pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps is proposing to amend the regulations in 33 CFR Part 334 by removing 334.78 to disestablish the restricted area.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Danger zones, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
2. Remove § 334.78.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, DOD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
The Corps of Engineers is proposing to amend an existing permanent restricted area in the waters of Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek along the York River in Yorktown, Virginia. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown is requesting the Corps of Engineers modify the existing restricted area to include areas historically noted on nautical charts as closed to the public and traditionally enforced by the Commander, Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown provides ordnance logistics, technical, supply and related services to the Atlantic Fleet. Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek are within a designated Level Two Restricted Area as defined by the Navy Physical Security and Law Enforcement Program. In addition, Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek are within explosive arcs from various munitions points on Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown is seeking authorization to expand the existing restricted area to enhance safety and security.
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2011-0038, by any of the following methods:
Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at 202-761-4922, or Ms. Nicole Woodward, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Regulatory Branch, at 757-201-7122.
The purpose of this regulatory action is to amend an existing restricted area to include areas historically noted on nautical charts as closed to the public and traditionally enforced by the Commander, Naval Weapons Station Yorktown.
The Corps authority to amend this restricted area is Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3).
Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps of Engineers is proposing amendments to regulations in 33 CFR Part 334 for a permanent restricted area in the waters of Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek along the York River in Yorktown, Virginia. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown provides ordnance logistics, technical, supply and related services to the Atlantic Fleet. Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek are within a designated Level Two Restricted Area as defined by OPNAVIST 5530.14E, Navy Physical Security and Law Enforcement Program. In addition, Felgates Creek and Indian Field Creek are within explosive arcs from various munitions points on Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown is seeking authorization to expand the existing restricted area to enhance safety and security. The Navy has also requested that these waterways shall remain restricted pursuant to authorities granted in 33 U.S.C. 1 during the rulemaking process. The temporary restricted areas were established as a separate action announced by public notice issued by the Norfolk District on September 12, 2011.
This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the amendment of this restricted area would have practically no economic impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard, or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities.
Due to the administrative nature of this action and because there is no intended change in the use of the area, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. An environmental assessment will be prepared after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. After it is prepared, it may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of the
This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private sector mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either Section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.
Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows:
40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).
2. Revise § 334.260 to read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(2) Trawling, dragging, and net-fishing are prohibited, and no permanent obstructions may at any time be placed in the area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Upon official notification, any vessel anchored in the area and any person in the area will be required to vacate the area during the actual mine-laying operation. Persons and vessels entering the area during mine-laying operations by aircraft must proceed directly through the area without delay, except in case of emergency. Naval authorities are required to publish advance notice of mine-laying and/or retrieving operations scheduled to be carried on in the area, and during such published periods of operation, fishing or other aquatic activities are forbidden in the area. No vessel will be denied passage through the area at any time during either mine-laying or retrieving operations.
(3) The Explosives-Handling Berth (Naval) described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is reserved for the exclusive use of naval vessels and except in cases of emergency no other vessel shall anchor therein without the permission of local naval authorities, obtained through the Captain of the Port, U.S. Coast Guard, Norfolk, Virginia. There shall be no restriction on the movement of vessels through the Explosive-Handling Berth.
(4) Vessels shall not be anchored, nor shall persons in the water approach within 300 yards of the perimeter of the Explosives-Handling Berth (Naval) when that berth is occupied by a vessel handling explosives.
(5) All persons and all vessels are forbidden to enter the prohibited areas described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section without prior permission of the enforcing agency.
(6) The regulations of this section shall be enforced by the Commander, Naval Weapons Station Yorktown, Virginia, and such agencies as he/she may designate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period and opportunity for public hearing.
On March 2, 2012, EPA proposed several related actions regarding a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by Nebraska to address its obligations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to regional haze for the first implementation period. One such action was EPA's proposal of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) relying on the Transport Rule to satisfy Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO
The comment period for the proposed rule published March 2, 2012 (77 FR 12270), is extended. EPA will accept public comments on or before May 2, 2012. If requested by April 9, 2012, a public hearing will be held on April 18, 2012, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Room 2240A, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas from 3:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Parties interested in the status of the public hearing may contact Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger by phone using the contact information provided below or they may consult the following link:
Instructions for comment submittal. Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
A contact person, with telephone number and email address, is listed at the end of each pesticide petition summary. You may also reach each contact person by mail at Antimicrobials Division (7510P), or Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P) or Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
3.
EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available online at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
A court order issued February 21, 2012, remands for agency reconsideration the regulations addressing the initial allocation of whiting for the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) fishery and the at-sea mothership fishery of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program (Program) and requires that NMFS implement revised regulations before the 2013 Pacific whiting fishing season begins on April 1, 2013. The purpose of this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) is to announce that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will be reconsidering the initial allocation of whiting at its April, June, and September 2012 meetings, and that NMFS is considering two rulemakings in response to the court order. The affected public should be aware of potential reallocation of whiting, as well as potential reallocation of a portion of the initial allocation of Quota Share (QS) for some incidentally caught, nonwhiting species. Additionally, this ANPR announces that the affected public should review, and if necessary, correct their data, which may be used for reconsideration and any reallocation that may occur.
Comments on this ANPR must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on May 4, 2012.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0062, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ariel Jacobs, 206-526-4491; (fax) 206-526-6736;
On February 21, 2012, Judge Henderson issued a court order in
In light of the court order, the Council will be reconsidering the initial allocation of whiting at its April, June, and September 2012 meetings. The Council is scheduled to select a range of alternatives at its April meeting, a preliminary preferred alternative at its June meeting, and a final preferred alternative and recommendation to NMFS at its September meeting. Depending on Council recommendations and NMFS actions, some of the nonwhiting QS issued for the shorebased whiting fishery in proportion to the whiting allocations, could also be affected by the reallocation of whiting. Further information regarding the Council meetings may be found at
NMFS plans to publish at least two rulemakings in response to the court order, referred to as Reconsideration of the Allocation of Whiting, Rules 1 and 2 (RAW 1 and RAW 2). The rulemaking for RAW 1 would delay at least two elements of the current regulations until reconsideration of the initial allocation has concluded, including the transfer of QS or Individual Bycatch Quota (IBQ) between QS accounts and the ability to change mothership catcher vessel (MS/CV) endorsement and associated catch history assignment from one limited entry trawl permit to another. In addition, NMFS may need to hold back sufficient quota pounds for whiting and all other incidentally caught species from the annual allocation of quota pounds (QPs) to QS accounts made on or about January 1, 2013 in order to allocate the appropriate final amounts based on recalculation of QS allocations. NMFS may also need to consider whether it is necessary to restrict limited entry trawl permit transfers for a period of time during this reconsideration. For the at-sea mothership fishery, NMFS may need to recalculate the whiting catch history assignments which may have an impact on processor obligations and coop formation, both of which occur before April 1, 2013.
In the proposed rule for RAW I, NMFS will announce further details on the process for data review and corrections. As occurred in 2009-2010, prior to the implementation of the current Program, the affected public will be advised to review, and if necessary, correct their data that may be used for initial allocation, or reallocation. NMFS anticipates publishing the proposed rule for RAW 1 in late April, and the final rule in July 2012.
The rulemaking for RAW 2 would take in to account the Council's September 2012 recommendation and reconsideration of the dates used for initial allocation of whiting for the shorebased IFQ and at-sea mothership fisheries. The proposed rule for RAW 2 is scheduled to publish in November 2012, and the final rule in March 2013. This rule would be effective by April 1, 2013, consistent with the court order.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 97 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). If approved, Amendment 97 would allow the owners of trawl catcher/processor vessels authorized to participate in the Amendment 80 catch share program to replace these vessels with vessels that meet certain requirements. This proposed action includes management measures that would establish the requirements for replacement vessels, such as a limit on the overall length of replacement vessels, measures to prevent replaced vessels from participating in Federal groundfish fisheries off Alaska that are not Amendment 80 fisheries, and specific catch limits known as Amendment 80 sideboards for replacement vessels. This action is necessary to promote safety-at-sea, by allowing Amendment 80 vessel owners to replace their vessels for any reason at any time and by requiring replacement vessels to meet certain U.S. Coast Guard vessel safety standards, and is intended to facilitate an increase in the processing capabilities of the fleet to improve the retention and utilization of groundfish catch by these vessels. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
Written comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Alaska local time (A.l.t.) May 4, 2012.
Send comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2011-0147, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from
Seanbob Kelly, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries of the BSAI in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
The proposed action would amend Federal regulations related to the Amendment 80 Program. In June 2006, the Council adopted Amendment 80 to the FMP, which was implemented with a final rule published in 2007 and was fully effective starting with the 2008 fishing year (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). Among other measures, Amendment 80 authorized the allocation of specified groundfish species to harvesting cooperatives and established a catch share program for trawl catcher/processors (C/Ps) that are not authorized to conduct directed fishing for pollock under the American Fisheries Act of 1998 (AFA) (Pub. L. 105-227, Title II of Division C). These non-AFA trawl C/Ps also are referred to as Amendment 80 vessels, or the Amendment 80 sector. Amendment 80 was intended to meet a number of policy objectives that included reducing potential bycatch reduction costs, encouraging fishing practices with lower discard rates, and promoting opportunities for the sector to increase the value of harvested species.
Several aspects of the Amendment 80 program as originally implemented would be modified by this proposed rule. The following provides some background on these aspects in order to provide the context for the modifications being proposed. Other aspects of the Amendment 80 program not affected by this proposed rule are described in detail in the final rule for the Amendment 80 program (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).
The Amendment 80 Program is a limited access privilege program (LAPP) that allocates a quota share (QS) permit to a person, based on a vessel's catch history of six Amendment 80 species (Atka mackerel, Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, flathead sole, Pacific cod,
In order to participate in the Amendment 80 program, the regulations require a person who owns the catch history of an original qualifying non-AFA trawl C/P to apply to NMFS for an Amendment 80 QS permit. Each of the 28 originally qualifying vessels may be assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit, if that vessel owner applies to receive an Amendment 80 QS permit. In developing the regulations for Amendment 80, NMFS determined that the language of the CRP prohibited vessels that did not meet the criteria from participating in the Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, only the 28 listed vessels were qualified to fish in the Amendment 80 sector and replacement vessels were not permitted unless the replacement vessel was one of the qualifying vessels listed in Table 31 to part 679.
To ensure that no more than the 28 originally qualifying vessels participate in the Amendment 80 fisheries, NMFS implemented regulations, at § 679.4(o)(v), requiring that Amendment 80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS permit are non-severable from that Amendment 80 QS permit and if transferred, then the Amendment 80 QS permit must be transferred in its entirety to another person. Moreover, regulations prevent the subdivision of an Amendment 80 QS permit and QS allocations of specific Amendment 80 species may not be transferred or otherwise reassigned. Of the 28 originally qualifying vessels, several vessels are no longer active in the Amendment 80 fleet due to an actual or constructive total loss (i.e., F/V
In cases where an original qualifying vessel has suffered a total or constructive loss, or is no longer eligible to receive a fishery endorsement (i.e., the vessel has been removed through a vessel buyback program, or has been reflagged as a foreign vessel), the regulations currently require that an Amendment 80 QS permit must be permanently assigned to the License Limitation Program (LLP) license, described in detail below, initially assigned to that original qualifying vessel, thus creating an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. Three Amendment 80 QS permits are permanently assigned to LLP licenses.
Once issued, Amendment 80 QS permits, and the Amendment 80 vessels or LLP licenses associated with those Amendment 80 QS permits, may be assigned annually to either an Amendment 80 cooperative or to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. Amendment 80 QS permit holders assigning their permit to an Amendment 80 cooperative are eligible to receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the total allowable catch (TAC) for the six defined Amendment 80 species, as well as a portion of the BSAI halibut, Bristol Bay red king crab, snow crab, and Tanner crab prohibited species catch (PSC) assigned to the Amendment 80 sector. Those Amendment 80 QS permit holders who assign their permits to the Amendment 80 limited access fishery do not receive an exclusive harvest privilege. NMFS apportions a specific percentage of the Amendment 80 species and PSC allowances among Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access fishery based on the aggregate Amendment 80 QS held by all of the QS permits assigned to Amendment 80 cooperatives or the Amendment 80 limited access fishery.
NMFS also requires participants in Amendment 80 fisheries to meet the requirements of the LLP program. The Council recommended and NMFS implemented the LLP as part of a comprehensive and rational management program for the fisheries in and off Alaska (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998). The LLP program limited the number, size, and specific operation type of vessels that may be used in fisheries for groundfish other than demersal shelf rockfish east of 140° W .long. and sablefish managed under the individual fishing quota program for Pacific halibut and sablefish in the EEZ off Alaska. The LLP program was intended to place an upper limit on the amount of capitalization that could occur in specific fisheries and prevent overcapitalization in those fisheries.
LLP licenses were issued based on fishing activity during specific qualification periods. Once issued, transferable LLP licenses authorize holders to conduct directed fishing for LLP groundfish species in the management areas endorsed on each LLP license. All licenses for groundfish species were designated for use by either CV or C/P operational type designation. This designation prescribed the authorized behavior of the LLP license holder on the vessel on which the license would be used. LLP licenses were issued with a specific vessel length category based on the size of the eligible vessel at the time of qualification for the LLP. LLP licenses specify the maximum length overall (MLOA) of the vessel to which that LLP license may be assigned. The average MLOA of an Amendment 80 LLP license is 170 feet (51.8 m) MLOA with 19 of the 28 Amendment 80 LLP licenses having a MLOA less than 200 feet (61 m), including one license with an MLOA of less than 100 feet (30.5 m). The longest MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license is 295 foot (89.9 m) MLOA. Additional detail on the MLOAs of Amendment 80 LLP licenses is provided in Table 1 in Section 2.3.5 of the analysis for this proposed action. Participants in Amendment 80 fisheries, and other LLP groundfish fisheries, are prohibited from using a vessel to fish for LLP groundfish that has a length overall (LOA) that is greater than the MLOA specified on the LLP license (see § 679.7(i)(6)).
As with other North Pacific LAPPs, the Council and NMFS have attempted to mitigate potentially adverse effects of the Amendment 80 program on non-LAPP fisheries that could be caused by the increased economic and operational efficiencies that LAPPs can provide participants. Specifically, once a harvest privilege is allocated, Amendment 80 QS permit holders may consolidate their operations through cooperative management and use Amendment 80 vessels in other fisheries. This could increase competition and the race for fish in non-Amendment 80 fisheries. To prevent this, the Amendment 80 program established a suite of measures, commonly called sideboard limits, to protect participants in other federally managed fisheries from increased participation by Amendment 80 vessel owners.
The Council identified Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries as the fisheries most likely to be at risk of increased harvest pressures with the implementation of the Amendment 80 program. The Council determined that without sideboards limiting Amendment 80 vessel harvests, GOA groundfish fisheries could be subject to increased fishing pressure from Amendment 80 vessels because of (1) the harvest patterns of the Amendment 80 sector, (2) the lack of other fisheries in the BSAI that can be targeted by
First, Amendment 80 limits catch of specific GOA groundfish species by Amendment 80 vessels other than the F/V
The GOA groundfish sideboard limits restrict the maximum amount of pollock, Pacific cod, and rockfish that Amendment 80 vessels can harvest. The GOA groundfish sideboard limits restrict the catch of Amendment 80 vessels to their average aggregate catch from 1998 through 2004. Catch of a GOA sideboard species during a directed fishery, as well as incidental catch of a GOA sideboarded species, such as Pacific cod caught during a rex sole fishery, accrues against the GOA sideboard limit for that species. In addition, any catch of a GOA sideboard species within State waters during the State parallel fishery accrues against the sideboard limit. State parallel fisheries occur in State waters, are opened at the same time as Federal fisheries in Federal waters, and catch accrues against the Federal TAC. Accounting for catch in the State parallel fishery ensures that all catch is debited against a sideboard limit whether that harvest occurs in State or Federal waters.
Second, Amendment 80 limits catch of GOA halibut PSC by Amendment 80 vessels, other than the F/V
The GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits established under Amendment 80 are slightly lower than historic catch of halibut PSC by Amendment 80 vessels in the GOA, during the period from 1998 through 2004, to accommodate two factors: an exemption from the Amendment 80 GOA halibut PSC sideboard limits for the F/V
NMFS subdivides the GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit by the number of seasons, and into two species complexes: the shallow-water and the deep-water fishery species complexes. A shallow-water halibut PSC sideboard limit restricts the catch of halibut PSC in the shallow-water fishery complex, which includes pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, and “other species.” A deep-water halibut PSC sideboard limit restricts the catch of halibut PSC in the deep-water fishery complex, which includes all species not in the shallow-water complex: all rockfish species, rex sole, deep-water flatfish, sablefish, and arrowtooth flounder. If the shallow-water halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached, all directed fishing for all species in the shallow-water complex is closed in the GOA for that season. Similarly, if the deep-water halibut PSC sideboard limit is reached, all directed fishing for all species in the deep-water complex is closed in the GOA for that season. NMFS can reopen a fishery complex in the following season with the halibut PSC sideboard limit applicable for that season.
Third, regulations implementing Amendment 80 restrict the number of Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 80 LLP licenses that can be used to conduct directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. The Council and NMFS reviewed historic harvest patterns during the 1998 through 2004 qualifying years and recognized a specific group of Amendment 80 vessels that were substantially more dependent on the GOA flatfish fisheries than other Amendment 80 vessels with more sporadic participation. NMFS authorized a subset of Amendment 80 vessels to be used to conduct directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA. Each qualifying Amendment 80 vessel conducted more than 10 weeks of directed fishing for GOA flatfish fisheries during 1998 through 2004 and are designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license that was originally assigned to one of the Amendment 80 vessels meeting that 10-week minimum requirement.
Table 39 to part 679 identifies the eleven Amendment 80 vessels and eleven Amendment 80 LLP licenses eligible for use in the GOA flatfish fishery. If an Amendment 80 vessel listed in Table 39 to part 679 is not designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license also listed in Table 39 to part 679, the regulations prohibit that vessel from conducting directed fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries. Similarly, if an Amendment 80 vessel not listed in Table 39 to part 679 is designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license also listed in Table 39 to part 679, the regulations prohibit that vessel from directed fishing in GOA flatfish fisheries.
The Amendment 80 program established GOA sideboard limits specifically for the F/V
The Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, regulations that further recognized the unique catch history of the F/V
Shortly after NMFS published the final rule implementing Amendment 80, Arctic Sole Seafoods, the owner of an original qualifying Amendment 80 vessel that was lost, challenged NMFS's statutory interpretation of section 219(a)(7) of the CRP and contended that the lack of replacement vessel language in the Amendment 80 Program was arbitrary and capricious. On May 19, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Court) issued a decision invalidating those regulatory provisions that limit the vessels used in the Amendment 80 Program to only those vessels meeting the qualification criteria in section 219(a)(7) of the CRP. In
After receiving the Court's decision, NMFS immediately developed an interim policy for vessel replacement consistent with the Court's decision. In October 2008, NMFS asked the Council to clarify the conditions under which an Amendment 80 vessel may be replaced consistent with the Court's decision, the CRP, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In response, the Council developed Amendment 97.
This proposed rule would allow the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel to replace that vessel with up to one other vessel for any reason and at any time. Regulations proposed by this action are intended to facilitate improved retention and utilization of catch by the Amendment 80 sector through vessel upgrades that would provide Amendment 80 vessel owners with the flexibility to incorporate a broad range of processing opportunities that are not currently available on all vessels. This proposed action also is intended to address the regulatory deficiencies that were identified by, and addressed by, the court order resulting from
The proposed regulations would allow owners of Amendment 80 vessels to replace their vessels for any reason and at any time up to a one-for-one vessel replacement. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that vessel owners are best-suited to determine the appropriate time to replace a vessel, and that vessel owners should be afforded broad discretion as to the reasons supporting vessel replacement. The Council's recommendation under Amendment 97 is intended to ensure that vessel owners would be able to initiate rebuilding or new construction of a vessel while the vessel to be replaced is still active (i.e., before it is lost), providing an opportunity for a potentially seamless replacement process and thereby reducing potential costs associated with foregone harvests. After reviewing the analysis for this action and receiving public testimony, the Council determined that this provision would provide vessel owners with opportunities for financial preparation for the investment, a more considered review of alternative design and construction options, and the optimization of delivery schedules.
Although Amendment 80 vessel owners would be able to replace their vessels at any time for any reason, the proposed rule would limit the number of replacement vessels an owner may have, requiring that each Amendment 80 vessel be replaced by no more than one vessel at any given time. Under the Amendment 80 Program, NMFS determined that 28 vessels met the criteria for participation in the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector established under the CRP and therefore were eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 Program. In considering vessel replacement, the Council determined that limiting the number of vessels eligible to participate in the Amendment 80 program at any given time to 28 vessels was consistent with the CRP and the Court's decision. The CRP is legislation aimed at facilitating a reduction in fishing capacity through a buyback program. The Court interpreted the CRP as authorizing vessel replacement to prevent the eventual elimination of the sector, but recognized that vessel replacement provisions that would increase the capacity in the
As an alternative to new vessel construction, the Council recommended, and NMFS proposes, regulations that would allow some vessels currently participating in the Amendment 80 program to replace other Amendment 80 vessels. As proposed, this action would enable the owners of Amendment 80 vessels to replace aging or underperforming vessels with other vessels currently prosecuting Amendment 80 fisheries, without requiring new construction. NMFS would require that all replacement vessels, including replacement vessels that are currently participating in an Amendment 80 fishery, meet contemporary vessel construction standards that are intended to improve safety-at-sea. A detailed review of the Amendment 80 fleet safety regulations proposed by this action can be found in Section 2.3.9.1 of the analysis for this action and below in this preamble.
The proposed rule would limit the length overall (LOA) of Amendment 80 replacement vessels to 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA. The Council considered several size limits, including no size limit, and various variable rate and fixed length increases to vessel size prior to recommending a 295 feet (89.9 m) vessel length limit. As described in Section 2.4.5.12 of the analysis for this action, the Council determined that a 295 feet (89.9 m) vessel length limit would allow each vessel in the fleet to reach the same LOA. The Council noted that the LOA of the longest Amendment 80 vessel is 295 feet (89.9 m). Thus this action would promote an equal standard for all vessels while allowing the largest vessel in the fleet to be replaced with one of equal size.
The Council also considered the operational parameters of the AFA catcher/processor fleet in recommending the 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA limit for the Amendment 80 fleet. Operations from the AFA catcher/processor fleet provided the Council with some perspective on the relative size of vessels that undertake fillet and fish meal operations in the BSAI. Although the AFA catcher/processor fleet primarily targets pollock, they do target and process yellowfin sole and Pacific cod with trawl gear in the same regions as many of the Amendment 80 vessels. The Council noted that vessels measuring 295 feet (89.9 m) participating in the AFA pollock fleet are large enough to incorporate additional processing infrastructure, such as onboard fish meal plants that can substantially improve the ability of vessel operators to produce valuable products from their harvest. AFA vessels that are at least 295 feet have met U.S. Coast Guard vessel class and load line safety requirements, and NMFS anticipates that Amendment 80 vessels of a similar size would likewise be able to meet these requirements. The Council determined that the 295 feet (89.9 m) vessel length limit was not likely to constrain the type of fishing operations possible on an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, or the economic viability of a replacement vessel.
The Council's primary rationale for establishing a limit on the size of replacement vessels is to address the potentially adverse competitive effects of new fishing capacity entering the fishery relative to the existing fleet. As described in detail in Section 2.4.5 of the analysis for this action, the proposed restriction of 295 feet (89.9 m) on the length of replacement vessels is intended to limit overall harvesting capacity of the fleet, reduce the potential for a race for fish, and encourage general improvements in harvesting capacity that any newly constructed vessel would provide over the vessel being replaced, while providing an upper boundary on total fleet capacity.
As described in the analysis for this action, the Council has frequently recommended limits on vessel length as a proxy for controlling fishery effort. Although length is only one measure of a vessel's fishing capacity, it is a metric that is commonly used, considered to be a reasonable indicator of total harvest capacity, and is relatively easily measured and enforced compared to other vessel measurements (
The proposed vessel length restrictions in concert with cooperative quota and sideboard restrictions are intended to reduce the potential for a race for fish in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. As noted in the section 2.4.5.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action, Amendment 80 vessels are constrained by quotas in most fisheries in the BSAI and sideboards limits in the GOA. These quotas and sideboard limits reduce the incentive for vessel operators to expand their vessel length in order to be more competitive in a race for fish. Specifically, vessels participating in an Amendment 80 cooperative are not competing in a race for fish and would not have an incentive to lengthen a replacement vessel in order to increase harvests of Amendment 80 species sideboard limits. These restrictions will remain in place and will continue to constrain the fleet in most fisheries.
However, vessels participating in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery continue to compete in a race for Amendment 80 species catch so vessel size could provide a competitive advantage to larger replacement vessels. Under Amendment 97, a vessel owner could choose to enter the Amendment 80 limited access fishery with a larger vessel and out-compete other participants. It is not possible to predict the likelihood that a vessel owner would choose to enter a longer vessel in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery for this purpose, but the incentives would increase as the difference becomes greater between potential harvests in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery and the amount of catch that the vessel may receive if participating in a cooperative.
The proposed maximum vessel length is intended to provide the opportunity for a vessel owner to increase the length of the vessel to improve the range of processed products and hold capacity onboard the vessel while establishing a maximum capacity for the fleet. The Council recognized that in many cases vessel length is less important for increasing harvest rates than for providing a large enough vessel to provide adequate hold capacity. Depending on the nature of an Amendment 80 fishery, a vessel may be constrained primarily by the rate of throughput and vessel hold capacity. The sizes of vessels that can incorporate
Although the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel can apply to use an existing Amendment 80 vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, as described in more detail below, the Council and NMFS anticipate that most replacement vessels would be newly constructed. Many of the existing vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet were originally constructed for purposes other than fishing; therefore, these vessels are less well-designed for fishing than a new, purposefully constructed fishing vessel would be. A vessel built to contemporary standards would likely have improved hold capacity, fuel efficiency, and harvest capacity relative to existing similarly sized vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. Larger vessels can incorporate improved hold design, processing plant construction, engines, and other advancements in marine design that improve a vessel's efficiency. Such modifications can enable vessel operators to store large quantities of fish and create or make value added products like surimi, fillets, and fishmeal in onboard fishmeal plants. Smaller vessels lack the capacity to incorporate such facilities. Thus smaller vessels require more trips to travel to and from fishing grounds to offload product. As noted earlier in this preamble, the average MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license is currently 170 feet (51.8 m). Under this action, the average LOA of all Amendment 80 vessels could increase up to 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA. Replacing a smaller vessel with a larger vessel could allow participants to fish for longer periods of time and reduce the number of trips required to offload products. Fewer trips would reduce fuel consumption and would allow vessel owners to minimize the time required to harvest their quota.
The Council's motion for Amendment 97 does not recommend that NMFS prohibit or otherwise establish regulations to limit the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. Additionally, as explained in the court's decision, the CRP does not prevent non-qualifying vessels from being used as replacement vessels in the Amendment 80 sector. Therefore, this proposed rule does not prohibit the use of an AFA vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. However, the Council's recommendation for Amendment 97 does not address potential statutory or regulatory conflicts that may limit the ability of an AFA vessel from actively participating in both AFA and Amendment 80 fisheries. NMFS notes that should a listed AFA vessel be approved by NMFS for use as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, then that vessel would not be released from the monitoring and enforcement requirements, sideboard restrictions, and the PSC limits that may be applicable to that AFA vessel. Any vessel eligible to participate in both fisheries would be required to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for both fisheries, possibly impacting that vessel's ability to participate in either fishery. For example, a listed AFA C/P that replaces an Amendment 80 vessel would be subject to existing directed fishing and halibut PSC sideboard limits applicable to listed AFA C/Ps. Under section 213(c) of the AFA, the Council and NMFS may supersede the sideboard provisions established by the AFA to mitigate adverse effects in fisheries caused by the AFA. AFA C/P vessel owners may ask the Council and NMFS to examine changes to existing sideboard limits for AFA C/Ps that would accommodate the use of an AFA C/P as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel.
NMFS notes that replaced AFA vessels are prohibited by statute from participation in fisheries other than AFA fisheries. Under section 602 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281, Title VI, Sec. 602), replaced AFA vessels are not eligible for a fishery endorsement in any fishery other than an AFA fishery and are prohibited from fishing other Federal fisheries, including Amendment 80 fisheries. As described in more detail in the Council's “AFA Vessel Replacement on GOA Sideboard” discussion paper (February 2012; see
The proposed rule would modify the MLOA on Amendment 80 LLP licenses to reflect the 295 feet (89.9 m) proposed limit on the length overall (LOA) for Amendment 80 vessels. Under regulations at §§ 679.4(o) and 679.7(i)(2), an Amendment 80 vessel is required to use an Amendment 80 LLP while fishing in the BSAI or GOA. The number of Amendment 80 LLP licenses is limited to those 28 LLP licenses originally issued for an Amendment 80 vessel as shown in Table 31 to part 679, and the seven non-AFA trawl C/P LLP licenses with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands endorsement that are eligible to be assigned to the Amendment 80 sector but have not yet been assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel (see Table 25 of Section 2.4.5.8 of the analysis for this action). Section 2.3.5 of the analysis for this action identifies the 28 LLP licenses that are currently assigned, or may be eligible to be assigned, to Amendment 80 vessels. Currently, each LLP license designated as an Amendment 80 LLP cannot be used on any vessel other than an Amendment 80 vessel. Under the LLP program, each LLP license (including those derived from a qualifying Amendment 80 vessel) upon initial issuance was assigned a MLOA based on the length of the qualifying vessel on a specific date. Additional detail on the methods for assigning MLOAs to specific LLP licenses is addressed in the final rule for the LLP program (63 FR 52642 October 1, 1998) and is not repeated here.
This proposed rule would remove the prohibition on using an Amendment 80 LLP license on a non-qualifying vessel and allow Amendment 80 LLP licenses to be used on approved Amendment 80 replacement vessels. In most cases, the MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license is below 295 feet (89.9 m); therefore, NMFS must increase the MLOA on Amendment 80 LLP licenses to ensure that replacement vessels are not constrained by the MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license. To ensure that the maximum size limit recommended by the Council can be implemented, NMFS proposes to establish a 295 feet (89.9 m) MLOA for all Amendment 80 LLP licenses that are assigned to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. This provision would ensure that Amendment 80 LLP licenses accurately reflect the MLOA of the replacement vessel. NMFS would not adjust the MLOA of an Amendment 80 LLP license until it is transferred to a replacement vessel. For those LLP licenses eligible to be assigned but not yet assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS would adjust the MLOA of those LLP licenses if one of these licenses is assigned to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. Furthermore, NMFS would not approve any Amendment 80 replacement vessel that was greater than 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA.
This proposed rule would make three modifications to existing regulations concerning the assignment of Amendment 80 QS permits. First, the proposed regulations would provide an Amendment 80 vessel owner with the choice of either assigning the
The proposed regulations would provide an Amendment 80 vessel owner with the choice of either assigning the Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel or permanently assigning the Amendment 80 QS permit to the LLP license derived from the originally qualifying vessel. Existing regulations at § 679.90(f) require the permanent coupling of an Amendment 80 QS permit and an LLP license for Amendment 80 vessels that are lost or permanently ineligible to participate in the Amendment 80 fisheries. This action would no longer require this permanent coupling if a vessel is lost or permanently ineligible to participate in the Amendment 80 fisheries. Instead, the proposed rule would provide Amendment 80 vessel owners with a choice of either assigning the Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel or permanently affixing the Amendment 80 QS permit to the LLP license derived from the originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel, as specified in Table 31 to part 679. Under this second option, the holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license could then assign the license to a vessel authorized to participate in the Amendment 80 sector. Existing regulations prohibit Amendment 80 QS permits that have been assigned to an LLP license (e.g. Amendment 80 LLP/QS license) from being uncoupled at a later date. Under this proposed rule, NMFS would maintain the existing practice of permanently affixing the Amendment 80 QS permit to the LLP license.
The proposed regulations would not require that a replacement vessel be limited to only one Amendment 80 QS permit or an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. As proposed, one replacement vessel could have several Amendment 80 QS permits assigned to that vessel in any fishing year. In making this recommendation, the Council considered that smaller vessel owners may wish to replace one, or more, of their smaller vessels with a single, longer vessel that can be used to fish the entire allocation assigned to the replaced vessels. A larger vessel with greater hold capacity could reduce travel times and operational costs associated with operating two or more vessels instead of one.
Amendment 97 would address two situations where the owner of an original qualifying Amendment 80 vessel and the person holding the Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that vessel differ. First, the proposed regulations prohibit replaced or replacement vessels from participating in an Amendment 80 fishery unless an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to that vessel or to the LLP license naming that vessel. This provision is intended to eliminate the risk that a person, who is not linked to the Amendment 80 fishery other than through holding title to a lost Amendment 80 vessel, could replace that vessel and enter the replacement vessel into the Amendment 80 limited access fishery. In making this recommendation, the Council recognized vessel owners could have an incentive to enter a replacement vessel into the Amendment 80 sector without having any underlying Amendment 80 QS permits being assigned to that vessel.
One example of this situation exists with the Amendment 80 QS permit derived from the F/V
Second, this proposed rule would permit a person holding an Amendment 80 QS permit associated with an Amendment 80 vessel that is permanently ineligible to re-enter U.S. fisheries to replace the vessel associated with its QS permit. In making this recommendation, the Council determined that an Amendment 80 QS permit holder who does not hold documentation to a vessel should be eligible to replace a vessel because it would provide these QS holders with the same opportunities as other QS holders who own vessels; that is, the ability to actively participate in the Amendment 80 fisheries with a replacement vessel. This provision is consistent with the CRP because the maximum number of vessels participating in the Amendment 80 sector would not increase given that the replaced vessel cannot re-enter U.S. fisheries. As an example, the holder of the F/V
To implement the Council's recommendations for this provision, NMFS would verify which vessels are
Amendment 97 would limit effort in non-Amendment 80 fisheries by replaced vessels. Therefore, this proposed rule would establish restrictions on the ability of replaced Amendment 80 vessels to participate in Federal groundfish fisheries within the BSAI and GOA. NMFS would allocate to any replaced vessel (
The Council made this recommendation after considering an option that would remove the associated Federal fishing permit (FFP) and the associated LLP license from the replaced vessel. The Council and NMFS determined that assigning replaced vessels a catch limit of zero metric tons was the most direct way to limit participation by replaced vessels. The proposed regulations are intended to prevent replaced Amendment 80 vessels from increasing fishing effort in non-catch share fisheries. Additionally, the Council noted the potential for consolidation of capital among longtime participants in groundfish fisheries that might disadvantage or have negative impacts on other participants in those fisheries. The Council's recommendation is consistent with other LAPP provisions for BSAI fisheries recommended by the Council and proposed in this action. NMFS notes that Amendment 97 would not restrict replaced Amendment 80 vessels from participating in the BSAI and GOA fisheries as motherships, Community Quota Entity floating processors, or stationary floating processors that only receive deliveries from other vessels for processing. Similarly, this action would not restrict replaced Amendment 80 vessels from operating in fisheries managed under the jurisdiction of other regional fishery management councils.
Monitoring and enforcement, permitting, recordkeeping and reporting, prohibitions, and general GOA sideboard measures that apply to all original Amendment 80 vessels, except the F/V
Under Amendment 97, any vessel that replaces an Amendment 80 vessel that is eligible to conduct directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA would continue to be allowed to conduct directed fishing in the GOA flatfish fishery. There are 11 Amendment 80 vessels currently authorized to conduct directed fishing in the GOA flatfish fisheries. Although the Council considered measures to limit access or to limit the size of replacement vessels for these 11 Amendment 80 vessels, the Council did not recommend that NMFS prohibit or limit GOA flatfish harvest by these replacement vessels. The Council determined, in part, that eligible Amendment 80 vessel owners should not have to choose between vessel safety improvements and the ability to continue to harvest GOA flatfish. Moreover, the harvest of GOA flatfish by these vessels is constrained by halibut PSC limits specified for GOA flatfish fisheries. Finally, the Council acknowledged that the GOA TACs for some species of GOA flatfish are typically not fully harvested, thus indicating that increased harvest would not likely affect other participants in these fisheries.
The Council made this recommendation after considering that there is no conservation or management issue for those fisheries at this time. The Council and NMFS recognize the potential for fishing effort to move the Amendment 80 fisheries in the BSAI to other non-AFA fisheries, including the GOA flatfish fishery. However, NMFS and the Council do not anticipate a rapid increase in fishing effort due to the impact of replacement vessels and could address the issue at a later date should a conservation or management problem be predicted. As described in Section 2.3.8 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action, construction times can vary substantially for vessels, but new construction would probably require a minimum of 2 years from the beginning of construction to final delivery based on the vessel characteristics desired by vessel owners. Additional time would be required to develop blueprints, undertake computer-aided testing, and source materials.
The proposed regulations implementing Amendment 97 recognize the special standing that the F/V
NMFS is proposing regulations under Amendment 97 that would ensure that any replacement vessel for the F/V
The Council and NMFS have long sought to improve safety-at-sea and have recognized the safety concerns within the Amendment 80 fleet. Since 2000, vessel losses and individual fatalities have made the Amendment 80 fleet one of the highest-risk Federal fisheries within the jurisdiction of the Council. Amendment 80 vessels are considered by the U.S. Coast Guard as high risk primarily due to the area in which they operate, the large number of crew they carry, and their high-consequence of marine casualty history. Since 2000, there have been two major vessel losses in this fleet. The sinking of the F/V
Prior to 2006, the Amendment 80 sector had been regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard for safety regulations as “fishing vessels” that conducted head and gut (H&G) operations (46 U.S.C. 2101). This meant that vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet only had to meet minimal standards for the carriage of primary lifesaving equipment. However, in 2005, formal U.S. Coast Guard investigations into the loss of the F/V
Under current law, any fish processing vessel which is built or undergoes a major conversion after July 27, 1990, is required by 46 U.S.C. 4503 to meet all survey and classification requirements prescribed by the American Bureau of Shipping or another similarly qualified classification society. A classification society is a non-governmental organization that establishes and maintains technical standards and rules for the construction (hull, machinery and other vital systems) and operation of ships and offshore structures. The classification society will also validate that construction is according to these standards and carry out regular surveys in service to ensure compliance with the standards. Similarly, all fish processing vessels 79 feet or greater that are built or converted for use as a fish processing vessel after January 1, 1983, are required by 46 U.S.C. 5102 to have a load line. A load line establishes the maximum draft of the ship and the legal limit to which a ship may be loaded for specific water types and temperatures. A load line is intended to ensure that a ship has sufficient freeboard so that the vessel has the necessary stability to operate safely.
However, the vast majority of the Amendment 80 sector is not load lined or classed. Due to a variety of concerns, classification societies have not recently classed or load lined vessels greater than 20 years old, and do not appear likely to do so in the foreseeable future. Based upon this limitation, 22 of 24 Amendment 80 vessels cannot meet the requirements of class and loadline. The U.S. Coast Guard and owners of Amendment 80 vessels collaborated to develop an alternative program to address the safety risks of this fleet. This collaborative effort is known as the Alternative Compliance and Safety Agreement (ACSA). Program development began in June 2005, and implementation was achieved between June 2006 and January 2009. The ACSA program is designed to achieve numerous safety, economic, and fishery management goals, both directly and indirectly.
ACSA is both a preventative safety regime, as well as a reactive one. Preventative safety components of the ACSA program focus primarily on maintaining hull condition and watertight integrity, preventing down flooding, ensuring adequate vessel stability, requiring enhanced fire detection and suppression, and establishing preventative maintenance for machinery and critical piping systems. Reactive safety components of ACSA include enhanced emergency training, improved lifesaving equipment, and additional firefighting capabilities of the vessel and crew. These standards are achieved through mandatory annual inspections and regular drydock examinations.
While the U.S. Coast Guard and Amendment 80 vessel owners have seen significant improvements in vessel safety as a result of the ACSA program, there are limitations to its long-term effectiveness for the Amendment 80 fleet. The Council and NMFS recognize that no Amendment 80 vessels were constructed to meet the requirements of class and loadline; therefore, there are some inherent limitations in achieving a total safety equivalency. Moreover, the National Transportation and Safety Board's (NTSB) investigation into the sinking of the F/V
If Amendment 80 vessel operators wish to undertake a major modification of a vessel to increase its size, address safety concerns, or otherwise improve its efficiency, those vessel operators would need to recertify that vessel under ACSA, which is an extensive and expensive process. It is highly unlikely
If Amendment 97 is implemented, NMFS would require Amendment 80 vessel owners applying to NMFS to replace their vessel to submit documentation demonstrating that their replacement vessel meets U.S. Coast Guard requirements applicable to processing vessels operating in the Amendment 80 sector or, if unable to meet these requirements, demonstrate that the vessel is enrolled in the ACSA program. These provisions are intended to improve safety at sea by requiring Amendment 80 replacement vessels to meet safety requirements established for fishing vessels in recent years. NMFS notes that it would likely take decades for all vessels to receive safety upgrades; however, the proposed management measures requiring minimum safety certifications would promote long-term safety improvements for the Amendment 80 fleet.
The proposed rule would add regulations at § 679.4(o)(4) to establish the process for eligible participants to request that a vessel be approved as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. The proposed regulations require all eligible participants to submit a completed application before NMFS would approve a replacement vessel for use in the Amendment 80 fisheries. For NMFS to consider an application for approval, the applicant must identify the Amendment 80 vessel being replaced. The applicant would need to specify vessels that have been lost at sea or are permanently ineligible to participate, identify the replacement vessel, provide documentation demonstrating that the replacement vessel is classed and load lined or if incapable of being classed and load lined, and that it meets the requirements of ACSA. The applicant must sign and date an affidavit affirming that all information provided on the application is true, correct, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. Persons holding an Amendment 80 QS permit for a vessel that has been deemed ineligible for use and are applying to replace that vessel would have to provide evidence to NMFS that ineligibility has been established through a U.S. Coast Guard or MARAD determination. Written documentation would need to be provided to establish that an ineligible vessel cannot reenter the fishery and that the replacement vessel should be permitted to replace the ineligible vessel.
If NMFS receives a completed application submitted under one of the approved methods described in the proposed regulations at § 679.4(o)(4)(ii)(D), then NMFS will process that application as soon as possible. Once received by NMFS, a replacement vessel will be approved by the Regional Administrator as an Amendment 80 vessel provided that:
• The replacement vessel does not exceed 295 feet LOA;
• The replacement vessel was built in the United States and, if ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States;
• The replacement vessel is classed and load lined or, if the vessel cannot be classed and load lined, the vessel meets the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard ACSA program; and
• Only one replacement vessel is used as a replacement for any one replaced vessel at a given time.
Based on experience with similar actions, NMFS would likely complete the review of an application within 10 calendar days. Applicants should consider the potential time lag between submission of a completed application and the effective date of NMFS' approval of an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. A list of NMFS-approved Amendment 80 vessels, including replacement vessels, would be made publicly available at the NMFS Web site at
The evaluation of an application for an Amendment 80 replacement vessel would require a decision-making process that would be subject to administrative appeal. Applications not meeting the requirements will not be approved, and NMFS would issue an initial administrative determination (IAD) to indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the information (or the evidence submitted in support of the application) and provide information on how an applicant could appeal an IAD. The appeals process is described under § 679.43. However, if an application is denied, eligible contract signatories could reapply at any time. This program is designed to be flexible and includes no deadlines for submission or limit on the number of times applications could be submitted to NMFS.
In order to implement the Council's recommendations under Amendment 97, NMFS proposes to modify existing regulations at § 679.90(d), (e), and (f) regarding the allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits. Specifically, NMFS would add provisions to the Application to Transfer Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS) that would allow QS holders to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to a new person, transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to the Amendment 80 LLP license assigned to the originally qualifying Amendment 80 LLP license as noted in Table 31 to part 679, or transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit affixed to an Amendment 80 QS/LLP license to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. In order to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to another person, or to a vessel approved as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, to an Amendment 80 LLP license defined in Table 31 to part 679, a person would have to submit an application to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit that is approved by NMFS under the provisions proposed at § 679.90(f). A person holding an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license would be able to transfer that Amendment 80 LLP/QS license to another person under the provisions of § 679.4(k)(7).
In order to participate in a U.S. fishery, a vessel must obtain a certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement either from the U.S. Coast Guard or MARAD (See,
Unless an exemption applies, a vessel is not eligible for a fishery endorsement if it is greater than 165 feet in registered length; is more than 750 gross registered tons (as measured pursuant to 46 U.S.C. chapter 145) or 1900 gross registered tons (as measured pursuant to 46 U.S.C. chapter 143); or possesses a main propulsion engine or engines rated to produce a total of more than 3,000 shaft horsepower, excluding auxiliary engines for hydraulic power, electrical generation, bow or stern thrusters, or
As described earlier, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that any Amendment 80 replacement vessel should be permitted to be up to 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA and have the tonnage and horsepower deemed necessary by the vessel's owner. Because several of the options considered by the Council for length of replacement vessel would permit an Amendment 80 vessel to be longer than 165 feet registered length and may require greater tonnage or horsepower than permitted by the 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) for a fishery endorsement, NOAA General Counsel and MARAD General Counsel consulted to determine what action on the part of the Council and NMFS would satisfy this exemption. NOAA General Counsel and MARAD General Counsel determined that the Council would need to recommend, and the Secretary would need to approve, conservation and management measures that would allow such a vessel to be used in the Amendment 80 fisheries. The Council recommended Amendment 97 and this proposed rule, which contain conservation and management measures that would permit an Amendment 80 replacement vessel to exceed the specific length (
If the Secretary approves Amendment 97 and issues a final rule to implement Amendment 97, the Secretary will have approved conservation and management measures that would permit an Amendment 80 replacement vessel to exceed the specific length (
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this proposed action are contained at the beginning of this section and in the
Information concerning ownership of non-AFA trawl C/Ps and QS holdings that would be used to estimate the number of small entities that are directly regulated by this action is limited. Information about the ownership patterns of non-AFA trawl C/Ps and QS holdings is not required by NFMS. To estimate the number of small versus large entities, gross earnings from all fisheries of record for 2009 were matched with the vessels, the known ownership of those vessels, and the known affiliations of those vessels in the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries for that year. NMFS has specific information on the ownership of vessels and the affiliations that exist based on data provided by the Amendment 80 sector, as well as a review of ownership data independently available to NMFS on FFP and LLP applications. The vessels with a common ownership linkage, and therefore affiliation, are reported in Table 2 in Section 2 of the analysis. In addition, those vessels that are assigned to a cooperative and receive an exclusive harvest privilege would be categorized as large entities for the purpose of the RFA, under the principles of affiliation, due to their participation in a harvesting cooperative.
NMFS knows that up to 28 non-AFA trawl C/Ps could be active in the Amendment 80 fishery. Those persons who apply for and receive Amendment 80 QS are eligible to fish in the Amendment 80 sector, and those QS holders would be directly regulated by the proposed action. Vessels that are assigned Amendment 80 QS and that are eligible to fish in the Amendment 80 sector are commonly known as Amendment 80 vessels. Currently, there are 27 Amendment 80 vessels that would be directly regulated based on this action. One vessel owner who could be eligible for the Amendment 80 Program and could apply for Amendment 80 QS has not done so, and would not be directly regulated by the proposed action unless and until the owner is approved to do so. Based on the known affiliations and ownership of the Amendment 80 vessels, all but one of the Amendment 80 vessel owners would be categorized as large entities for the purpose of the RFA. Thus, this analysis estimates that only one small entity would be directly regulated by the proposed action. It is possible that this one small entity could be linked by company affiliation to a large entity, which may then qualify that entity as large entity, but complete information is not available to determine any such linkages.
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.
The suite of potential actions includes three alternatives. A detailed description of these alternatives is provided in Section 2 of the analysis. Alternative 1 is the “no action” alternative. This alternative would not address the Federal Court Order to provide for replacement of Amendment 80 vessels and would not be consistent with the purpose and need of this action. Alternative 2 would allow an Amendment 80 vessel owner to replace a vessel under conditions of loss or permanent ineligibility. This alternative would meet the minimum requirements of the court order but was not selected
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting burden estimates per response for these requirements are listed by OMB control number.
Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 1 hour for Application for Transfer, License Limitation Program Groundfish/Crab License.
Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 2 hours for Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS) permit application; 2 hours for Amendment 80 QS permit transfer application; and 2 hours for Amendment 80 Vessel Replacement application.
Public reporting burden estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information.
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
2. In § 679.2,
a. Revise the definition of “Amendment 80 LLP/QS license” and introductory paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition for “Amendment 80 vessel”, and add paragraph (2)(iv) to the definition of “Maximum LOA (MLOA)”; and
b. Add a new definition of “Amendment 80 replacement vessel”.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) Is listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part with the corresponding USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of Table 31 to this part; or
(2) Is designated on an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 QS/LLP license, or Amendment 80 LLP license and is approved by NMFS in accordance with § 679.4(o)(4) as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel.
(2) * * *
(iv) The MLOA of an Amendment 80 LLP license or Amendment 80 LLP/QS license will be permanently changed to 295 ft (89.9 m) when an Amendment 80 replacement vessel is listed on the license following the approval of a license transfer application described at § 679.4(k)(7).
3. In § 679.4,
a. Revise paragraphs (k)(7)(vii), (o)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(v); and
b. Add paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(C), (o)(1)(vii), (o)(4), and (o)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C)
(7) * * *
(vii)
(B) A request to change the vessel designated on an Amendment 80 LLP license or an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license must be made on an Application for Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel in accordance with § 679.4(o)(4)(ii). The MLOA modification specified at paragraph (k)(3)(i)(C) of this section will be effective when a complete application is submitted to NMFS in accordance with paragraph (k)(7) of this
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel that gave rise to that permit under the provisions of § 679.90(b), or its replacement under § 679.4(o)(4), unless the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the holder of an LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel under the provisions of § 679.90(d) or § 679.90(e).
(v) Amendment 80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS permit are non-severable from that Amendment 80 QS permit and if transferred, the Amendment 80 QS permit must be transferred in its entirety to another person under the provisions of § 679.90(d) or § 679.90(e).
(vii) The owner of an Amendment 80 vessel must designate the Amendment 80 vessel on an Amendment 80 QS permit and on an Amendment 80 LLP license, or designate the Amendment 80 vessel on the Amendment 80 LLP/QS license to use that Amendment 80 vessel in an Amendment 80 fishery.
(4)
(A) The replacement vessel does not exceed 295 ft (89.9 m) LOA;
(B) The replacement vessel was built in the United States and, if ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States; and
(C) The applicant provides documentation demonstrating that the vessel complies with U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements applicable to processing vessels operating in the Amendment 80 sector or if unable to provide such documentation, the applicant provides documentation that the vessel meets the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard's Alternative Compliance and Safety Agreement.
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(iii)
5. In § 679.7, add paragraph (o)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
(o) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) A vessel to fish in an Amendment 80 fishery without an Amendment 80 QS permit or Amendment 80 QS/LLP license assigned to that vessel.
5. In § 679.90, revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (e)(ii), (e)(3), and (f) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80 LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel, that Amendment 80 LLP license is designated as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. A person may not separate the Amendment 80 QS permit from that Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
(3)
(ii) A person holding an Amendment 80 LLP license that is designated as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license may designate a vessel approved as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel by submitting an Application For Transfer License Limitation Program Groundfish/Crab License that is approved by NMFS under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)
6. In § 679.92,
a. Revise paragraph (c); and
b. Add paragraphs (d)(2) and (e).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c)
(2)
(ii) Any vessel that NMFS subsequently approves to replace an Amendment 80 replacement vessel that replaced an Amendment 80 vessel listed in column A or Table 39 to this part may be used to fish in the directed arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, and shallow-water flatfish fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii) If the vessel replacing the GOLDEN FLEECE is greater than 124 ft (38.1 m) (the MLOA of the LLP license that was originally assigned to the GOLDEN FLEECE, LLG 2524), then the sideboard provisions at § 679.92(b) and (c) apply.
(e)
(1) An Amendment 80 QS permit and an Amendment 80 LLP license; or
(2) An Amendment 80 QS/LLP license will be allocated a catch limit of 0 mt of groundfish in the BSAI and GOA.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice of Licensing Agreement Fee Schedule.
This notice specifies the fee schedule for the new Export Food Aid Commodities (EFAC) licensing agreement offered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA). Agricultural products that may be stored under an EFAC licensing agreement include, but are not limited to, corn soy blend, vegetable oil, and pulses such as peas, beans, and lentils. USWA licensing is a voluntary program. Warehouse operators that apply for USWA licensing agree to be licensed, comply with the licensing agreement, and pay associated user fees. The fees announced in this notice are intended to cover the costs of administering the licensing program, including the costs of inspections.
Patricia Barrett, Warehouse Operations Program Manager; phone: (202) 720-3877, email:
USWA (7 U.S.C. 241-256) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to license warehouse operators who store agricultural products and to assess warehouse operator fees. FSA administers this authority for USDA. The USWA licensing program is intended to protect depositors of agricultural products by ensuring that licensed warehouses meet specified requirements for sanitation, physical security, equipment maintenance, recordkeeping, insurance, and financial soundness. The licensing agreement specifies the terms and conditions for a warehouse operator to qualify for licensing and to operate the warehouse in compliance with the USWA and with federal regulations in 7 CFR part 735.
The USWA requires the Secretary to assess fees to cover the cost of implementing the program. FSA has different types of USWA licensing agreements, with storage and inspection requirements and fees that are specific to the purpose of the license and the commodities to be stored.
On March 15, 2011 (76 FR 13972-13973), FSA published a notice in the
This notice announces the fee schedule for the EFAC licensing agreement. Both the fee schedule and the licensing agreement will be posted on the FSA Web site at
The EFAC licensing agreement will be available to port and transload facility operators storing or handling EFAC. This licensing agreement was developed in response to concerns of export food aid providers; specifically, the sanitation and security of agricultural commodities temporarily stored and handled in preparation for export under various food aid programs. In many existing USWA licensed warehouses, commodities such as grain or rice are stored in bulk form and commingled. In contrast, EFAC are typically packaged products that are stored on an “identity preserved” basis, meaning that specific quantities must be stored and handled separately from all other commodities to allow for the subsequent delivery of the actual commodity delivered for warehouse storage. The fee structure for EFAC reflects that requirement. For example, USWA warehouse fees typically include a separate “service license” fee to license individuals to inspect and weigh commodities, but this is not an applicable fee category for EFAC.
The fees provided in this notice are intended to cover the costs of the EFAC warehouse examination and inspection program. The warehouse examination and inspection program is designed to ensure the warehouse operator's initial qualification for licensing and continuing compliance with the regulations and the licensing agreement. FSA will conduct examinations and inspections of licensed facilities as specified in the EFAC licensing agreement. Inspections will be conducted to determine the suitability of a facility for proper storage and handling of EFAC. Examinations will include, but are not limited to, review of warehouse records, pest management and control, housekeeping, safety, and security of goods in the care and custody of the licensee. The personnel conducting the examinations will verify that all commodities are properly marked and recorded in the warehouse records, and that commodities are stored in licensed space. Facilities must be kept and maintained in sound physical condition.
USWA fees vary by type of warehouse, and are based on estimates of FSA costs for warehouse examinations and inspections for that type of warehouse. The fee schedule for EFAC was developed based on the anticipated time needed to review license applications and amendments, and to conduct inspections and subsequent examinations. FSA will review the fee schedule periodically to ensure that fees collected will cover associated FSA operational costs, and may revise the schedule accordingly. Any changes to the fee schedule will be posted on the FSA Web site and announced in the
Section 4(a) of the USWA states, “The Secretary shall assess persons covered
Annual user fees are assessed based on the cost for site visits to conduct warehouse examinations to determine continued compliance with the terms of the licensing agreement and the USWA. Annual user fees will be assessed independently of application fees and inspection fees. The annual user fee will be $1500 for 1 to 3 locations, plus $300 for each additional location operated under the same licensing agreement.
Inspection fees are assessed to recover the costs of administering the USWA. The inspection fees are assessed for site visits to determine initial suitability for storage of EFAC. Fees will be assessed for each original examination or inspection and for amendment examinations to modify an existing license. The inspection fee will be $1000 for 1 to 3 locations, plus $300 for each additional location operated under the same licensing agreement. Fees for additional or special examination services, including requested examinations or examinations due to adverse conditions, will be assessed at an hourly rate as determined by FSA.
USWA fees for EFAC are provided in the following table:
General information about FSA administration of its responsibilities related to the USWA is available on FSA's Web site, at the following link:
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announces that it will hold a public meeting on April 19, 2012, in Buffalo, New York, to present the findings from its investigation of a flammable vapor explosion on November 9, 2010, at the E.I DuPont de Nemours and Co. Inc. chemical plant in Buffalo, New York. The incident involved a contract welder and foreman who were repairing an agitator support atop an atmospheric storage tank containing flammable vinyl fluoride (VF). The VF vapor from interconnected, in-service process tanks flowed undetected into the tank and ignited when the welder was repairing the agitator support assembly. The welder died instantly and the foreman was burned.
The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. at the Embassy Suites Buffalo Downtown, Room: Encore I, II, and III, 200 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, NY 14202 (716-842-1000). The meeting is free and open to the public. Pre-registration is not required, but to assure adequate seating, attendees are encouraged to pre-register by emailing their names and affiliations to
At the meeting CSB staff will present to the Board the results of their investigation into this incident. Key issues involved in the investigation concern flammable gas monitoring, tank isolation and hot work permits and sign-offs. Following the presentation of the CSB's findings and safety recommendations, the Board will hear comments from the public.
At the conclusion of the public comment period, the Board will consider whether to approve the final case study and recommendations. All staff presentations are preliminary and are intended solely to allow the Board to consider in a public forum the issues and factors involved in this case. No factual analyses, conclusions or findings presented by staff should be considered final. Only after the Board has considered the final staff presentation, listened to the public comments and approved the staff case study will there be an approved final record of this incident.
The Board will also consider whether to approve the CSB's draft 2012-2016 Strategic Plan, which includes strategic goals, objectives, and associated measures for managing and evaluating agency operations. The draft plan is available for public comment until April 12, 2012 at
Please notify CSB if a translator or interpreter is needed, at least 5 business days prior to the public meeting. For more information, please contact the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board at (202) 261-7600, or visit our Web site at:
U.S. Census Bureau, 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, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 4, 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(s) and instructions should be directed to Mary C. Potter, U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division, Room 7K157, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 763-4207 (or via the Internet at
The Census Bureau plans to continue the current OMB clearance for the Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization (QPC). The QPC is conducted quarterly, collecting from manufacturing plants and publishers, the value of actual production, the value of production that could have been achieved if operating at “full production” levels, and the value of production that could have been achieved if operating at “national emergency” levels. The survey also collects data on work patterns by shift. These data include hours in operation, production workers, and plant hours worked.
The primary users of these data will be the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The FRB will use these data in several ways. First, the capital workweek data will be used as an indicator of capital use in the estimation of monthly output (industrial production). Second, the workweek data will be used to improve the projections of labor productivity that are used to align industrial production (IP) with comprehensive benchmark information in the Economic Census, Manufacturing and Annual Survey of Manufactures. Third, the utilization rate data will assist in the assessment of recent changes in IP, as most of the high-frequency movement in utilization rates reflect production changes rather than capacity changes. The DLA will use these data to assess readiness to meet demand for goods under selected national emergency scenarios.
The Census Bureau will use the mail out/mail back survey forms to collect the data. We also offer an electronic version of the form for reporting via the Internet. Companies will be asked to respond within 20 days of the initial mailing. This due date will be imprinted at the top of the form. Letters encouraging participation will be mailed to companies that have not responded by the designated time. Subsequent to the letter, we will conduct a telephone follow-up.
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.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of 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, as amended.
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 4, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th Street 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 John Cobb, Program Analyst, Office of Regional Affairs, Room 7009, Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-0951, facsimile (202) 482-2838 (or via the Internet at
The mission of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) is to lead the Federal economic agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. In order to effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, EDA collects certain information from applications for, and recipients of, EDA investment assistance. A recipient must submit a written request to EDA to amend an investment award and provide such information and documentation as EDA deems necessary to determine the merit of altering the terms of an award (
Paper Report.
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.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 277, requesting manufacturing authority on behalf of Suntech Arizona, Inc. (Suntech), located in Goodyear, Arizona. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on March 27, 2012.
The Suntech facility (100 employees, 117,000 square feet, 50 megawatt annual capacity) is located within Site 5 of FTZ 277. The facility is used for the manufacture of 275 and 290 watt solar panels for industrial use. Components and materials sourced from abroad (representing 80% of the value of the finished product) include: Junction boxes, silicone sealant, putty/caulking compounds, plastic sheets, glass, tin-coated copper strips, aluminum frames, insulation strips, and copper bars (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.3%).
FTZ procedures could exempt Suntech from customs duty payments on the foreign components used in export production. The company has no current exports, but has indicated that it may export in the future. On its domestic sales, Suntech would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to solar panels (duty-free) for the foreign inputs noted above. Suntech would also be exempt from duty payments on any of these foreign inputs that become scrap or waste during manufacturing. FTZ designation would further allow Suntech to realize logistical benefits through certain customs procedures. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment. The request indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Diane Finver of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 4, 2012. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to June 18, 2012.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is extending the time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review, and aligned new shipper reviews, of certain frozen fish fillets (“fish fillets”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”). These reviews cover the period August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011.
Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202.482.0413.
On October 3, 2011, the Department published in the
In antidumping duty administrative reviews, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month.
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of these reviews within the original time limit because the Department requires additional time to analyze questionnaire responses, issue supplemental questionnaires, conduct verification, and to evaluate surrogate value submissions.
Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of these reviews by 120 days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than August 30, 2012. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 7, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film) from the United Arab Emirates.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 428-4261.
Since the preliminary results, the following events have taken place. JBF submitted a timely case brief on January 6, 2012. DuPont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc., SKC, Inc., and Toray Plastics (America), Inc. (collectively, Petitioners) filed a timely rebuttal brief on January 11, 2012.
The period of review is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.
The products covered by the order are all gauges of raw, pre-treated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film), whether extruded or co-extruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer more than 0.00001 inches thick. Also excluded is roller transport cleaning film which has at least one of its surfaces modified by application of 0.5 micrometers of SBR latex. Tracing and drafting film is also excluded. PET Film is classifiable under subheading 3920.62.00.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the United Arab Emirates: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results” (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce Building, room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum is also accessible on the Web at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made adjustments to our margin calculations for JBF. Specifically, we revised coding in our margin program to correct an error in the deduction of credit expenses from the home market gross unit price.
As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010:
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific)
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above in the section “Final Results of Review”; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 4.05 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 9, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the
Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031.
As noted above, on January 9, 2012, the Department published the
We have not made any changes to the
The scope of the order includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size.
The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of the order. In addition, food preparations (including dusted shrimp), which are not “prepared meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of the order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce
When dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.
The products covered by the order are currently classified under the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The dumping margin for the POR is as follows:
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer)
The following cash deposit requirement will be effective upon publication of the final results of this NSR for all shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported from Thong Thuan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Thong Thuan, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this NSR. If the cash deposit rate calculated in the final results is zero or
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before April 24, 2012. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementing regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Port of San Francisco (Port), allowing the take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to pile driving during construction of the Brannan Street Wharf.
Effective May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013.
A copy of the IHA, the application, and the Environmental Assessment are available by writing to Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by telephoning the contact listed here (see
Michelle Magliocca, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) further established a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
On May 6, 2011, NMFS received an application from the USACE, on behalf of the Port, requesting an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment, of small numbers of Pacific harbor seals (
A complete description of the specified activity may be found in NMFS' proposed IHA notice in the
All piles will be driven to a depth of 60 ft below the mudline elevation. Only one pile type is expected to be installed on any given day. Conservatively assuming the maximum vibratory time and number of impact blows required for each pile, a total of 988 minutes of vibratory driving and 150,000 impact blows will be necessary over the 12-month duration of the project. All vibratory pile driving will use a standard frequency hammer similar to an APE 150, which produces up to 1,800 vibrations per minute. All impact pile driving will use a DelMag D46-32 diesel impact hammer, which produces about 122,000 foot-pounds maximum energy blow at 1.5 seconds per blow on average. A bubble curtain will be used as a sound attenuation device during impact pile driving for the 24-in and 36-in steel shell piles.
The activity will occur in the San Francisco Bay at Pier 36, four blocks south of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. More specifically, this area is located between Pier 30-32 and Pier 38, directly adjacent to the east side of the Embarcadero and within the South of Market district of San Francisco. San Francisco Bay and the adjacent Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta make up one of the largest estuarine systems on the continent. The Bay has undergone extensive industrialization, but remains an important environment for healthy marine mammal populations year round. The area surrounding the activity is an intertidal landscape with heavy industrial use and boat traffic.
Wharf and pier demolition—which is not expected to harass marine mammals—may begin in January 2012 and last for five months. The new wharf construction, including pile driving, is scheduled to begin in May 2012 and end 13 months later; however, pile driving is expected to be complete by December 2012.
For background, sound is a mechanical disturbance consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound level describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of change. For example, 10 dB yields a sound level 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while a 20 dB level equates to 100 times more intense, and a 30 dB level is 1,000 times more intense. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, these reference pressures are “re: 20 μPa” and “re: 1 μPa,” respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.
A review of numerous pile driving projects with comparable water depth and substrate conditions was conducted to identify source sound level data and estimate potential sound levels for pile driving activities around Pier 36. In their calculations, the Port conservatively assumed that the use of a bubble curtain for steel shell piles will reduce sound levels by 5 dB RMS. A conservative attenuation factor of 16 dB RMS (about 5 dB RMS per doubling of distance) was also assumed in the Port's analysis; sound attenuation would likely be greater than 16 dB RMS for such shallow water pile driving (CalTrans, 2009). Pile driving at Pier 36 is expected to occur in water depths of zero to 15 feet. Maximum sound pressure levels for pile driving activities are shown in Table 2.
A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the application and proposed authorization was published on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66274). During the 30-day public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) provided the only comments.
Marine mammals with confirmed occurrences in San Francisco Bay are the Pacific harbor seal, California sea lion, gray whale, harbor porpoise, humpback whale (
The action consists of both in-water and above-water components, but the only activity with the potential to take marine mammals is pile driving. A detailed description of potential impacts to marine mammals can be found in NMFS' October 26, 2011
Marine mammals are continually exposed to many sources of sound. For example, lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and animals are natural sound sources throughout the marine environment. Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for various biological functions including, but not limited to, (1) social interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may result in adverse impacts. Audible distance or received levels will depend on the sound source, ambient noise, and the sensitivity of the receptor (Richardson
Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for when PTS first occurs in marine mammals; therefore, it must be estimated from when TTS first occurs and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure levels. PTS is likely if the animal's hearing threshold is reduced by ≥ 40 dB of TTS. PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be louder in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to days, occurs in specific frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can occur to varying degrees (e.g., an animal's hearing sensitivity might be reduced by 6 dB or by 30 dB). For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS-onset threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for marine mammals. Southall
Southall
There are limited data available on the behavioral effects of non-pulse noise (for example, vibratory pile driving) on pinnipeds while underwater; however, field and captive studies to date collectively suggest that pinnipeds do not react strongly to exposures between 90 and 140 dB re: 1 microPa; no data exist from exposures at higher levels. Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed wild harbor seal reactions to high-frequency acoustic harassment devices around nine sites. Seals came within 44 m of the active acoustic harassment devices and failed to demonstrate any behavioral response when received SPLs were estimated at 120-130 dB. In a captive study (Kastelein, 2006), scientists subjected a group of seals to non-pulse sounds between 8 and 16 kHz. Exposures between 80 and 107 dB did not induce strong behavioral
No known data exist for sound levels resulting from the type of vibratory hammer and pile sizes that will be used at the proposed project site; however, measured sound levels for the “King Kong” vibratory hammer used in Richmond, California ranged between 163 and 180 dB RMS (Illingworth and Rodkin, 2007). Sound levels at the proposed project site are expected to be lower because the vibratory hammer being used has an expected sound level of 165 dB for 24-in piles and 175 dB for 36-in piles. In addition, San Francisco Bay is highly industrialized and masking of the pile driver by other vessels and anthropogenic noise within the action area may, especially in the nearby shipping channel, make construction sounds difficult to hear at greater distances. Underwater ambient noise levels along the San Francisco waterfront may be around 133 dB RMS, based on measurements from the nearby Oakland Outer Harbor (Caltrans, 2009). Seals will likely also exhibit tolerance or habituation (Richardson
No impacts to marine mammal reproduction are anticipated because there are no known pinniped haul-outs or rookeries within the proposed project area and San Francisco Bay is not a known breeding ground for cetaceans. Marine mammals may avoid the area around the hammer, thereby reducing their exposure to elevated sound levels. NMFS expects any impacts to marine mammal behavior to be temporary, Level B harassment (for example, avoidance or alteration of behavior).
No permanent detrimental impacts to marine mammal habitat are expected to result from the proposed project. Pile driving (resulting in temporary ensonification) may impact prey species and marine mammals by resulting in avoidance or abandonment of the area; however these impacts are expected to be local and temporary. Site conditions are expected to be improved or substantively unchanged from existing conditions. The proposed project will result in the net removal of approximately 3,550 ft
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
When using impact pile driving to install steel piles in water depths greater than two feet, an unconfined bubble curtain will be used to reduce hydroacoustic sound levels to avoid the potential for injury. The bubble curtain is expected to reduce sound levels by at least 5 dB.
During all in-water impact pile driving, the Port will establish a preliminary marine mammal exclusion zone with 50 m (164 ft) radius around each pile to avoid exposure to sounds at or above 180 dB. This includes an 8-m (26-ft) buffer zone to further avoid marine mammals from entering the 180 dB isopleth. The exclusion zone will be monitored during all impact pile driving to ensure that no marine mammals enter the 50-m (164-ft) radius. The purpose of this area is to prevent Level A harassment (injury) of any marine mammal species. Once underwater sound measurements are taken, the exclusion zone may be adjusted accordingly so that marine mammals are not exposed to Level A harassment sound pressure levels. An exclusion zone for vibratory pile driving or installation of concrete piles is unnecessary as source levels will not exceed the Level A harassment threshold.
If a protected species observer sees a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone prior to start of impact pile driving, the observer will notify the on-site resident engineer (or other authorized individual) who will then be required to delay pile driving until the marine mammal has moved outside of the exclusion zone or if the animal has not been resighted within 15 minutes for pinnipeds or 30 minutes for cetaceans. If a marine mammal is sighted within or on a path toward the exclusion zone during pile driving, pile driving should cease until that animal has cleared and is on a path away from the exclusion zone or 15/30 minutes (pinnipeds/cetaceans) has lapsed since the last sighting.
A “soft-start” technique will be used at the beginning of each pile installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the immediate area to leave before the pile hammer reaches full energy. For vibratory pile driving, the soft-start procedure requires contractors to initiate noise from the vibratory hammer for 15 seconds at 40-60 percent reduced energy followed by a 1-minute waiting period. The procedure will be repeated two additional times before full energy may be achieved. For impact hammering, contractors will provide an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then two subsequent three-strike sets. Soft-start procedures will be conducted prior to driving each pile if hammering ceases for more than 30 minutes.
Monitoring for herring spawning events will be conducted on a daily basis between December 1 and February (although pile driving is expected to be complete in December). If a herring spawning event is observed, in-water work will cease for a period of two weeks following the spawning event (a
NMFS has carefully evaluated the above mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, and practicality of implementation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures and the Commission's comments, NMFS has determined that the above mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impacts on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present.
Hydroacoustic monitoring will be performed at the initial installation of each pile type (24-in concrete, 24-in steel, and 36-in steel) to ensure that the harassment isopleths are not extending past the calculated distances described in this notice. The Port must designate at least one biologically-trained, on-site individual, approved in advance by NMFS, to monitor the Level B harassment zone area for marine mammals 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all impact pile driving activities and call for shut down if any marine mammal is observed within or approaching the designated exclusion zone (preliminarily set at 50 m [164 ft]). In addition, at least two NMFS-approved protected species observers will conduct behavioral monitoring out to 1,900 m during all vibratory pile driving for the first two weeks of activity to validate take estimates and evaluate the behavioral impacts piles driving has on marine mammals out to the Level B harassment isopleth. If there are no observations of marine mammals within the Level B harassment isopleth during this time, behavioral monitoring may be reduced to a level agreed upon by the applicant and NMFS. Note that for impact hammering, the initial Level B (160 dB) harassment isopleths are 42 m (138 ft) for the concrete piles and 750 m (2,460 ft) for the steel piles. For vibratory hammering, the initial estimated distance is 1,900 m (6,233 ft). If light condition is low (such as early morning or late afternoon), protected species observers will use infrared scopes to conduct their observations.
Protected species observers will be provided with the equipment necessary to effectively monitor for marine mammals (for example, high-quality binoculars, spotting scopes, compass, and range-finder) in order to determine if animals have entered into the exclusion zone or Level B harassment isopleth and to record species, behaviors, and responses to pile driving. If hydroacoustic monitoring indicates that threshold isopleths are greater than originally calculated, the Port will contact NMFS within 48 hours and make the necessary adjustments. Likewise, if threshold isopleths are actually less than originally calculated, adjustments may be made. Protected species observers will be required to submit a report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of pile driving. The report will include data from marine mammal sightings (such as species, group size, and behavior), any observed reactions to construction, distance to operating pile hammer, and construction activities occurring at time of sighting.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), CWA shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Acting Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities will not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with CWA to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CWA may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that CWA discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), CWA will immediately report the incident to the Acting Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to
In the event that CWA discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), CWA will report the incident to the Acting Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Based on the application and subsequent analysis, the impact of the described pile driving operations (including mitigation and monitoring) may result in, at most, short-term modification of behavior by small numbers of marine mammals within the action area. Marine mammals may avoid the area or temporarily alter their behavior at time of exposure.
Current NMFS practice regarding exposure of marine mammals to anthropogenic noise is that in order to avoid the potential for injury (PTS), cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds of 180 and 190 dB or above, respectively. This level is considered precautionary as it is likely that more intense sounds would be required before injury would actually occur (Southall
Distances to NMFS' harassment thresholds were calculated based on the sound levels at each source and the expected attenuation rate of sound (Table 3). Two sets of threshold distances were identified: one for concrete piles and one for steel piles. The threshold distances listed for the steel piles are those expected from the 36-in steel pile driving activities, as they will also encompass the isopleths for the 24-in steel piles. The 42-m (268-ft) distance to the Level A harassment threshold provides protected species observers plenty of time and adequate visibility to prevent marine mammals from entering the area during impact pile driving. This will prevent marine mammals from being exposed to sound levels that reach the Level A harassment threshold. In-air sound from pile driving also has the potential to affect marine mammals. However, in-air sound is not a concern here because there are no pinniped haul-outs near the project area.
The estimated number of marine mammals potentially taken is based on marine mammal monitoring reports prepared by the California Department of Transportation during similar activities in San Francisco Bay and on discussions with the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. The California Department of Transportation's San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge marine mammal monitoring reports were used to estimate the number of pinnipeds near the Pier 36/Brannan Street Wharf area as both sites are relatively close in distance and are similar in bathymetric features. However, monitoring conducted for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge project was in close proximity to a haul-out area, while the Pier 36/Brannan Street Wharf location is in an area of high commercial boat activity and no adjacent haul-outs. Therefore, the Caltrans data likely overestimate marine mammal abundance for the Pier 36/Brannan Street Wharf location. Based on consultation with the NMFS Southwest Regional Office, review of the monitoring reports described above, and the estimated number of pile driving days, the Port requested authorization for the incidental take of 138 harbor seals (an average of 2 per day), 69 California sea lions (an average of 1 per day), 69 harbor porpoises (an average of 1 per day), and 2 gray whales (2 annually). Based on further consultation with the NMFS Southwest Regional Office and previous authorizations in this region, and included in the
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” as “* * * an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.” In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers a number of factors which include, but are not limited to, number of anticipated injuries or mortalities (none of which are authorized here), number, nature, intensity, and duration of Level B harassment, and the context in which takes occur.
As described above, marine mammals will not be exposed to activities or sound levels which will result in injury (PTS), serious injury, or mortality. Pile driving will occur in shallow coastal waters of San Francisco Bay. The closest pinniped haul-out is 3.2 km (2 mi) away, which is well outside the project area's largest harassment zone. Marine mammals approaching the action area will likely be traveling or opportunistically foraging. The amount of take authorized is considered small (less than one percent each) relative to the estimated populations of 34,233 Pacific harbor seals, 238,000 California sea lions, 9,189 harbor porpoises, and 18,813 gray whales. Marine mammals may be temporarily impacted by pile driving noise. However, marine mammals are expected to avoid the area, thereby reducing exposure and impacts. Pile driving activities are expected to
Based on the analysis contained in this notice, the proposed IHA notice (76 FR 66274, October 26, 2011), and the IHA application, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that the Port's proposed pile driving activities will result in the incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, and that the total taking from will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action.
No marine mammal species listed under the ESA are anticipated to occur within the action area. Therefore, section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 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.
Submit comments on or before June 4, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6612, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Rafi Goldberg, Telecommunications Policy Analyst, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, NTIA, at (202) 482-1880 or
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) proposes to add 12 questions to the U.S. Census Bureau's October 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS) in order to gather reliable data on broadband (also known as high-speed Internet) use by U.S. households. President Obama has established a national goal of universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans.
The Census Bureau (“the Bureau”) is widely regarded as a superior collector of data based on its centuries of experience and its scientific methods. Collection of NTIA's requested broadband usage data, moreover, will occur in conjunction with the Bureau's scheduled October 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS), thereby significantly reducing the potential burdens on the Bureau and on surveyed households. Questions on broadband and Internet use have been included in ten previous CPS surveys.
The U.S. government has an increasingly pressing need for comprehensive broadband data. The General Accountability Office (GAO), NTIA, and the FCC have issued reports noting the lack of useful broadband adoption data for policymakers, and Congress passed legislation—the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009—wholly or partly in response to such criticisms. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) looks to Census Bureau data as an important input into their inter-country benchmark analyses. Modifying the October CPS to include NTIA's requested broadband data will allow the Commerce Department and NTIA to respond to congressional concerns and directives, and to work with the OECD on its broadband methodologies with more recent data. The change to this reinstatement will be a revised set of computer and Internet usage survey questions.
Personal visits and telephone interviews, using computer-assisted telephone interviewing and computer-assisted personal interviewing.
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 be a matter of public record.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “We”) has received a petition (CP 12-1) requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking to determine that the “BeeSafe System” is equally effective as, or better than, the systems designed to prevent entrapment listed in the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (“VGB Act”). We invite written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by June 4, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0020, by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and petition number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to:
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to:
Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833.
Section 1404(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the VGB Act requires that each public pool and spa in the United States with a single main drain other than an unblockable drain be equipped, at a minimum, with one or more of the following anti-entrapment devices or systems: (I) Safety vacuum release system; (II) Suction-limiting vent system; (III) Gravity drainage system; (IV) Automatic pump shut-off system; (V) Drain disablement; or (VI) any other system determined by the Commission to be equally effective as, or better than, these systems at preventing or eliminating the risk of injury or death associated with pool drainage systems. 15 U.S.C. 8003(c)(1)(A)(ii). The Commission has received correspondence from Bonnie Snow and Teri Snow (“petitioners”), dated February 13, 2012, requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking to determine that the “BeeSafe System” is equally effective as, or better than, systems designed to prevent entrapment listed in 1406(c)(1)(A)(ii)(I)-(V) of the VGB Act. We are docketing this request as a petition under the Consumer Product Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058.
Petitioners offer information in support of their claim that the BeeSafe System is equally effective as, or better than, the systems designed to prevent entrapment listed in the VGB Act. They assert that the most defining feature of their system is the presence of long tubes, which they claim empty if they become blocked. For this reason, petitioners state, the “BeeSafe System is better alone than with an SVRS [suction vacuum release system] or back-up breaker.” Petitioners also describe that through the design of the BeeSafe system, they have eliminated the possibility of the entire cover going missing. They state that if the smaller, winterizing lid were to go missing, any tubes that became blocked would empty the water into the built-in sump and any suction at the surface would be released when this happened. They compare this action to a hydraulic switch, claiming that the action is “as fast or faster than any of the breaker secondary systems currently on the market.”
By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition and submission on the Commission's Web site at
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the annual meeting of the Board of Visitors (BoV) for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The Board's charter was renewed on February 21, 2012 in compliance with the requirements set forth in Title 10 U.S.C. 2166.
WHINSEC Board of Visitors Secretariat at (703) 614-8721.
The meeting is open to the public. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), members of the public or interested groups may submit written statements to the advisory committee for consideration by the committee members. Written statements should be no longer than two type-written pages and sent via fax to (703) 614-8920 or emailed to
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2012.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.132B.
The purpose of the Training and Technical Assistance grant under the Centers for Independent Living program is to provide training and technical assistance to eligible agencies, centers for independent living (CILs), and Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs) with respect to planning, developing, conducting, administering, and evaluating CILs.
A CIL is a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential private nonprofit agency that is designed and operated within a local community by individuals with disabilities and that provides an array of independent living services. An eligible agency is a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential, private nonprofit agency.
The purpose of independent living services is to maximize leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities, and to integrate these individuals into the mainstream of American society.
Each State establishes a SILC that jointly develops and signs the State Plan for Independent Living with the Designated State Unit and monitors, reviews, and evaluates the implementation of the State plan. A majority of a SILC's members are individuals with disabilities, and other members include CIL representatives and State agency representatives, as well as other appropriate individuals.
The Department is inviting applications for one grant to provide training and technical assistance to CILs and SILCs. This is a change from how we conducted the last competition for this grant. In 2007, we awarded separate grants to train CILs and SILCs. In response to the FY 2007 notice of proposed priorities published in the
While acknowledging the validity of the concerns expressed regarding separate grants, the Department determined in 2007 that the benefits of two grants outweighed the potential costs. The Department believed that two grants would permit grantees to focus training and technical assistance on the specific needs of CILs and SILCs separately to ensure that the unique activities and responsibilities of the CILs and SILCs were addressed.
In addition to furthering program objectives, this decision maximizes the funds available for the direct provision of training and technical assistance to CILs and SILCs.
Although the number of CILs has increased as a result of funds made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the funds appropriated for the CIL program, including the funds available for training and technical assistance for CILs and SILCs, have decreased in both FY 2011 and FY 2012. By providing training and technical assistance to CILs and SILCs through a single grant, the Department will also increase the efficiency of the training and technical assistance by reducing administrative costs.
These priorities are:
This priority supports a CILs Training and Technical Assistance Center (CILs T&TA Center) to improve the performance of CILs by providing training and technical assistance to the CILs on the programmatic and financial aspects of their operations, including information on effective practices and proven solutions to common problems. CILs are distributed across the Nation and vary in size, stage of development, service area characteristics, and urgency of need for training and technical assistance. Therefore, the training and technical assistance provided by the CILs T&TA Center must be sensitive to this diversity and must encompass a broad range of topics.
The CILs T&TA Center must make available to all CILs a broad array of resources, training, and technical assistance. In addition, the CILs T&TA Center must address the specific needs of CILs by providing those CILs that require it with intensive, individualized, on-site training and technical assistance that meets their needs. In this regard, the CILs T&TA Center must be prepared to respond promptly to the Department's identification of particular training and technical assistance needs in general and those of particular CILs.
In coordination with the Department, the CILs T&TA Center must—
(a) Develop and provide training and technical assistance, based on the CILs' annual performance report survey and other available data, on topics related to the provision and expansion of independent living (IL) services (primarily the IL core services), fiscal and management practices, compliance with CIL standards and assurances, increased program efficiency, rigorous evaluations, and improved outcomes as measured by long-term goals and indicators;
(b) Develop and implement a plan to ensure that training and technical assistance efforts will reach all federally funded CILs and other eligible agencies;
(c) Refer CILs and eligible agencies to non-IL specific training and technical assistance available through government or non-government resources;
(d) Utilize a broad range of available, accessible technologies and methodologies to provide training and technical assistance to CILs and eligible agencies in the most effective and cost efficient manner;
(e) Provide focused, intensive, and rapid training and technical assistance to CILs identified by the Department as needing, or to CILs requesting, such assistance;
(f) Identify and develop accessible training and technical assistance materials and disseminate these materials to CILs and eligible agencies; and
(g) Coordinate and collaborate with other training and technical assistance projects funded by the Department to ensure that training and technical assistance activities are complementary and non-duplicative and that dissemination activities are effective and efficient. At a minimum, the CILs T&TA Center must coordinate with any SILC Training and Technical Assistance Center funded under the Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs) Training and Technical Assistance Center priority.
This priority supports a SILCs Training and Technical Assistance Center (SILCs T&TA Center) to improve the performance of SILCs through greater access to timely and relevant training and technical assistance regarding SILC duties and operation.
In coordination with the Department, the SILCs T&TA Center must—
(a) Develop and provide training and technical assistance, based on the SILCs' annual performance report survey and other available data, on topics directly related to SILC legal responsibilities, including SILC organization and operation and the development of the State Plan for Independent Living;
(b) Develop and implement a plan to provide to all SILCs the training and technical assistance identified in paragraph (a) of this priority;
(c) Refer SILCs to non-IL specific training and technical assistance available through government or non-government resources;
(d) Utilize a broad range of available, accessible technologies and methodologies to provide training and technical assistance to SILCs in the most effective and cost efficient manner;
(e) Identify and develop accessible training and technical assistance materials and disseminate these materials to the SILCs;
(f) Provide training and technical assistance to SILCs to enhance SILC partnerships with State vocational rehabilitation agencies, CILs, and other organizations, with a focus on sharing successful operational experiences of other SILCs; and
(g) Coordinate and collaborate with other training and technical assistance projects funded by the Department to ensure that training and technical assistance activities are complementary and non-duplicative and dissemination activities are effective and efficient. At a minimum, the SILCs T&TA Center must coordinate with any CILs Training and Technical Assistance Center funded under the Centers for Independent Living (CILs) Training and Technical Assistance Center priority.
29 U.S.C. 796f.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.132B.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
2.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission Requirements in this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The CCR registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take three or more business days to complete.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
Applications for grants under the Centers for Independent Living—Training and Technical Assistance, CFDA number 84.132B must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for Centers for Independent Living—Training and Technical Assistance at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Mary Williams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5144, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7590.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.132B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
The goal of this grant is to provide training and technical assistance with respect to planning, developing, conducting, administering, and evaluating CILs to the following eligible entities authorized under title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended: Eligible agencies, CILs, and SILCs.
In annual performance reports, grantees are required to provide specific information on the number of training activities, the topics of each training program, the number and types of participants served (i.e., CILs, SILCs, or eligible agencies), and summary data from participant evaluations.
5.
Mary Williams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5144, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7586 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of Application.
WSPP Inc. (WSPP) has applied, on behalf of ten of its members, to renew the authority of those members to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada, pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The WSPP application also requested new export authority for two other members to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before April 19, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On September 5, 1996, DOE authorized 42 members of the WSPP to export electric energy to Canada (Order No. EA-98-C). Over time, the specific members authorized to export has changed through the addition or deletion of various members in several subsequent proceedings in the EA-98 docket. Current Order No. EA-98-L was issued on May 6, 2009, and authorizes 13 WSPP member companies individually to transmit electric energy to Canada. That Order will expire on April 25, 2012.
The international transmission facilities authorized for use by those exporters are owned by the Bonneville Power Administration, also a WSPP member. The facilities consist of two 500-kV transmission lines and one 230-kV transmission line that interconnect with facilities of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, and one 230-kV transmission line that interconnects with West Kootenay Power, Limited. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of these international transmission facilities was previously authorized by Presidential Permits PP-10, PP-46, and PP-36, respectively.
WSPP filed an application with DOE on February 24, 2012, which was subsequently amended, on behalf of the following member companies for renewal of their export authority contained in Order No. EA-98-L: Avista Corporation, Edison Mission Marketing and Trading, Inc., Idaho Power Company, Northern States Power Company, PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric Company, Powerex Corporation, Public Service Company of Colorado, Puget Sound Energy, and TransCanada Energy Sales Ltd. The application, as amended, also requested new export authority for the following two members: BP Energy Company and Twin Eagle Resource Management, LLC.
WSPP also requested that DOE expedite the processing of its application in order to avoid any lapse in the export authority for some of its members. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days.
Comments on the WSPP application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-98-M. An additional copy is to be filed directly with Arnold B. Podgorsky, General Counsel to WSPP and Patrick L. Morand, Associate, Wright & Talisman, P.C., 1200 G Street NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005-3802. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation (Rainbow) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be addressed to: Christopher Lawrence, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Christopher Lawrence (Program Office) at 202-586-5260, or by email to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the FPA (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On November 9, 2004 the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-296 authorizing Rainbow to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a two-year term. That Order expired on November 9, 2006. On September 17, 2007, DOE issued Order No. EA-210-A to Rainbow for a five-year term. That Order will expire on September 17, 2012. On March 13, 2012, Rainbow filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA-296-A for an additional five-year term.
You need to start identifying more specifics about the applicant, such as the type of entity.
In its application, Rainbow states that it “does not own or control any physical electric generation or transmission facilities in the U.S. and does not have any franchised service territory in the U.S.” Therefore, the electric power proposed to be exported to Canada will be surplus to the needs of the entities selling power to Rainbow. The application also indicates that Rainbow is a power marketer authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to sell energy, capacity, and specified ancillary services at market-based rates.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by Rainbow have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments on the Rainbow application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. 296-B. An additional copy is to be filed directly with Joseph M. Wolfe, Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, Kirkwood Office Tower, 919 South 7th Street, Suite 405, Bismarck, ND 58504. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Secretarial Determination and Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of the F-Tank Farm (FTF) at the Savannah River Site (FTF 3116 Basis Document). DOE prepared and approved the FTF 3116 Basis Document pursuant to Section 3116(a) of the NDAA, which provides that the Secretary of Energy may, in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determine that certain waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste if the provisions set forth in Section 3116(a) are satisfied. To make the determination for the FTF, the Secretary of Energy determined that the waste in the FTF: (1) Does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository for spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste; (2) has had highly radioactive radionuclides removed to the maximum extent practical; and (3)(A) does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level waste and will be disposed of in compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR part 61, Subpart C and pursuant to a State approved closure plan or State-issued permit; or (3)(B) exceeds concentration limits for Class C low-level waste but will be disposed of in compliance with the performance objectives of 10 CFR part 61, Subpart C; pursuant to a State-approved closure plan or State-issued
The Basis for Determination and the Supplement Analyses to the NEPA ROD is available on the Internet at
U.S. Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Act, Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1G-033, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5955.
University of South Carolina-Aiken, Gregg-Graniteville Library, 471 University Parkway, Aiken, SC 29801, (803) 641-3320.
For more information, contact: Ms. Sherri Ross, DOE-SR, Building 704-S, Room 43, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC 29802 (ATTN: F-Tank Farm Secretarial Determination and Basis).
The FTF is a 22-acre site, located at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The FTF consists of 22 underground radioactive waste storage tanks and supporting ancillary structures. Two of those waste tanks, Tanks 17 and 20 were cleaned and operationally closed in 1997, prior to enactment of NDAA Section 3116. Accordingly, Tanks 17 and 20 are not within the scope of this FTF Section 3116 Basis Document. The major FTF ancillary structures are two evaporator systems, transfer lines, six diversion boxes, one catch tank, a concentrate transfer system, three pump pits, three pump tanks and eight valve boxes. There are three waste tank types in FTF with operating capacities ranging from 750,000 gallons (Type I tanks) to 1,300,000 gallons (Type III/IIIA and Type IV tanks). The waste tanks have varying degrees of secondary containment and in-tank structural features such as cooling coils and columns. All FTF waste tanks are constructed of carbon steel. The FTF was constructed to receive waste generated by various SRS production, processing and laboratory facilities.
DOE has initiated waste removal and cleaning of tanks and ancillary structures in the FTF using a process that includes removing bulk waste from tanks and ancillary structures and then deploying tested technologies to removing the majority of the remaining waste. After completing cleaning operations, a small amount of residual radioactive waste will remain in the tanks, ancillary equipment and piping. DOE plans to stabilize the residuals in the tanks and certain ancillary structures with grout. Tank waste storage and removal operations in the FTF are governed by a South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) industrial wastewater operating permit. Removal of tanks from service and stabilization of the FTF waste tanks and ancillary structures will be carried out pursuant to a State-approved closure plan, the
Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Meeting.
This notice announces a combined meeting of the Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee and Waste Management Committee of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico (known locally as the Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board [NNMCAB]). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 1 p.m.-2:15 p.m.
Bradbury Science Museum, 15th and Central Avenue, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 94 Cities of Gold Road, Santa Fe, NM 87506. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or Email:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of Open Webinar.
This notice announces an open webinar of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
April 24, 2012, 2 a.m.-4 p.m.
Elliott Levine, Designated Federal Officer, Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-1476; Email:
• Presentation on The Analytical Basis for Setting Biofuels Technical Goals
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
Take notice that 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 requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
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:
Commission staff member Aaron Siskind, of the Office of Energy Market Regulation, was previously assigned to settlement and litigation proceedings in the above-referenced dockets when he worked for the Office of Administrative Litigation.
As non-decisional staff, Mr. Siskind will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced dockets, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.
Mr. Siskind will not be assigned as advisory staff to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced dockets, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced dockets.
Commission staff member Aaron Siskind, of the Office of Energy Market Regulation, previously was assigned to assist the Office of Administrative Litigation in settlement and litigation proceedings in the above-referenced dockets. In addition, Mr. Siskind
As non-decisional staff, Mr. Siskind will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced dockets, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.
Mr. Siskind will not be assigned as advisory staff to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced dockets, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced dockets.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Iron Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Wildcat Wind Farm I, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Desert View Power, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Silver State Solar Power North, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Alliance NYGT, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 17, 2012.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
On February 17, 2012, FFP Project 108, 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 hydropower at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) R. D. Bailey Dam located on the Guyandotte River in Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. 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 R. D. Bailey Water Power Project would consist of the following: (1) A new 60-foot-long by 40-foot-wide by 25-foot-high powerhouse to be located downstream on the tailrace side of R. D. Bailey Dam; (2) a new bifurcating steel structure to be built on the existing outlet tunnel and consisting of a gated bypassed outlet and a 10-foot-diameter steel penstock; (3) two new turbine generator units for a total installed capacity of 7.8 megawatts; (4) a new 6.5-mile-long, 14.7-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; (5) a 4.16/46-kV substation; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 30,000 megawatt-hours, and operate on a modified run-of-river mode as directed by the Corps.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at
On March 5, 2012, Whitestone Power and Communications 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 Microturbine Hydrokinetic River-In-Stream Energy Conversion Project (Whitestone Project or project) to be located on the Tanana River within an Unorganized Borough, near Delta Junction, Alaska. 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 Whitestone Project would consist of: (1) A 12-foot-wide, 16-foot-diameter Poncelet undershot water wheel; (2) a 34-foot-long, 19- to 24-foot-wide, aluminum-frame floatation platform mounted on a 34-foot-long, 3.5-foot-diameter high-density-polyethylene (HDPE) pontoon and a 34-foot-long, 3-foot-diameter HDPE pontoon; (3) a 100-kilowatt turbine/generator unit; (4) a 33-foot-long, 3.5-foot-wide gangway from the shore to the floating pontoon; (5) three anchoring cables to secure the flotation platform to the shore, including a 30-foot-long primary safety tether, a 117-foot-long primary cable, and a 100-foot-long secondary cable; (6) an approximately 900-foot-long transmission cable from the floatation platform to an existing Golden Valley Electric Association distribution line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is anticipated to operate from April until October, with an estimated annual generation of 200 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of
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
Take notice that on March 30, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will update its eSubscription service that provides email notification when documents are added to eLibrary in a subscribed-to docket. eSubscription is one of the Commission's “FERC Online” services available to users that have established an eRegistration account on
Currently, when users eSubscribe to a docket or project number they are provided options to: (1) “Subscribe to open dockets only”; (2) “subscribe to the docket only”; or (3) “subscribe to the root and all existing and new sub-dockets.” To ensure that eSubscribers receive all of the email notifications relating to dockets they are subscribed to, the new release will only offer subscription to a docket or project number without the additional options mentioned above (e.g. options (1) and (2)). With this update, existing eSubscriptions will default to the root and all sub-dockets in subscribed-to dockets. eSubscribing to Commission Press Releases will not be affected by this update and will continue to be available for eSubscription.
Accordingly, this update will ensure that eSubscribers receive email notifications when various types of documents are added to a subscribe-to docket(s) in eLibrary, even if those documents are assigned new sub-dockets (e.g., requests for rehearing) or are filed in a “closed” docket.
For questions about eSubscription or assistance, please contact
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-OECA-2011-0245, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Monitoring Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0245, which is available for public viewing either online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart N, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
There is an increase in the total respondent and Agency costs as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in cost estimated reflects updated labor rates available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0891, to (1) EPA online using
Staci Gatica, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9469; fax number: (202) 343-2338; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 30, 2011 (76 FR 74055), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one late comment, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0891, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Under its Protocol commitments, the United States is obligated to cease production and import of Class I controlled substances excluding chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are subject to essential use exemptions, methyl bromide that is subject to critical use exemptions or exemptions for quarantine and preshipment uses, previously used material, and material that will be transformed, destroyed, or exported to developing countries. The Protocol also establishes limits and reduction schedules leading to the eventual phaseout of Class II controlled substances with similar exemptions beyond the phaseout. The CAA has its own limits on production and consumption of controlled substances that EPA must adhere to and enforce.
Under 40 CFR 82.13, producers, importers, exporters, and distributors of Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODS) must meet quarterly, annual, and/or transactional recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This information collection is conducted to meet U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Class I ODS will enable EPA to: (1) Ensure compliance with the restrictions on production, import, and export of Class I controlled substances; (2) allow exempted production and import for certain uses and the consequent tracking of that production and import; (3) address industry and Federal concerns regarding the illegal import of mislabeled used controlled substances; (4) satisfy the United States' obligations to report data under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol; (5) fulfill statutory obligations under Section 603(b) of the CAA for reporting and monitoring; (6) provide information to report to the U.S. Congress on the production, use, and consumption of Class I controlled substances as statutorily required in Section 603(d) of Title VI of the CAA.
The reported data will enable EPA to maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production of ODS and analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used in accordance with requirements included in the annual authorization rulemakings.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0244, to: (1) EPA online using
Learia Williams, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4113; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0244, which is available for public viewing online at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.
All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined to be private.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
There is also an increase in the capital/startup costs in this ICR compared to the previous ICR due to an increase in the number of affected sources. The previous ICR estimates annualized capital/startup costs for existing and new facilities. This ICR reflects the on-going annualized capital/startup costs for all facilities including new facilities that have become subject to the standard in the past three years.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 4, 2012.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0841, to (1) EPA online using
Shiva Garg, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division, (mail code 5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8459; fax number: 703-308-0522; email address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 18, 2012 (77 FR 2535), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0841, which is available for online viewing at
Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Decision.
EPA is granting the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for authorization of California's emission standards and certification and test procedures for large spark-ignition nonroad engines and in-use fleet average emission requirements for large- and medium-sized fleets. California's LSI in-use fleet requirements are applicable to fleets comprised of four or more pieces of equipment powered by LSI engines, including forklifts, industrial tow tractors, sweepers/scrubbers, and airport ground support equipment.
Petitions for review must be filed by June 4, 2012.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0830. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver
Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9949. Fax: (202) 343-2800. Email:
By letter dated December 10, 2008, CARB submitted to EPA its request pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), regarding its regulation of emissions from new off-road large spark-ignition (LSI) engines and its in-use fleet requirements for forklifts and other industrial equipment with LSI engines.
Underpinning CARB's LSI regulations is a set of emission standards for new off-road LSI engines beginning in 2007. The emission standards include: adoption of EPA's 2007 and later model year emission standards for the same engines, more stringent standards for the 2010 and later model years, optional certification standards, and more rigorous certification and test procedures. The LSI regulations also apply to operators of large- and medium-sized fleets of forklifts, sweepers/scrubbers, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and industrial tow tractors with engine displacements of greater than one liter. These fleets must meet a fleet average in-use emission standard.
Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions for new nonroad engines or vehicles. States are also preempted from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to enforce such standards and other requirements, unless EPA makes one of three findings. In addition, other states with attainment plans may adopt and enforce such regulations if the standards, and
(a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable federal standards.
(b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator finds that any of the following are true:
(1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
(2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
(3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
(c) In considering any request from California to authorize the state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California standard.
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same “consistency” criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she finds that California “standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)” of the Act. Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.
In
The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.
With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although
Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As found in
Upon review of CARB's request, EPA offered an opportunity for a public hearing, and requested written comment on issues relevant to a full section 209(e) authorization analysis, by publication of a
In response to EPA's October 31, 2011
Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the agency finds that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. CARB's Board made a protectiveness determination in Resolution 06-11, finding that California's LSI regulations will not cause the California emission standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.
EPA did not receive any comments challenging California's protectiveness determination. Therefore, based on the record before us, EPA finds that opponents of the authorization have not shown that California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.
Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if the agency finds that California “does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions * * *.” This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are necessary to meet such conditions.
Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections 209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).
To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, California's LSI regulations must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. California's LSI regulations expressly apply only to off-road vehicles and do not apply to engines used in motor vehicles as defined by section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act.
To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act, California's LSI regulations must not affect new farming or construction vehicles or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or their engines. CARB presents that the Board “ensured consistency with section 209(e)(1) by specifically excluding new off-road engines under 175 horsepower primarily used in farm and construction vehicles and equipment from the definition of off-road LSI engines.”
The requirement that California's standards be consistent with section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that timeframe. California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal and California test procedures conflicted. The scope of EPA's review of whether California's action is consistent with section 202(a) is narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures
Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section 202(a) relates to technological feasibility.
CARB presents that the technology required to comply with its LSI regulations is currently available, and that it has provided sufficient lead-time, giving consideration to cost of compliance.
EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's standards and test procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently, based on the record, EPA cannot deny California's authorization based on technological infeasibility.
California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.
EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's LSI regulations pose any test procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the record, EPA cannot find that CARB's testing procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based on this criterion.
Airlines for America (“A4A”) has provided comments opposing EPA's grant of authorization for California's LSI regulations. The reasons A4A provides in its comments are outside the scope of EPA's scope of review of California authorization requests under section 209(e)(2). A4A claims that California's LSI rules are preempted by the Federal Aviation Act and the Airline Deregulation Act. As EPA has stated on numerous occasions, EPA's review of California regulations under section 209 is not a broad review of the reasonableness of the regulations or its compatibility with all other laws. Sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act limit our authority to deny California requests for waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California's requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.
After a review of the information submitted by CARB and A4A, EPA finds that those opposing California's request have not met the burden of demonstrating that authorization for California's LSI regulations should be denied based on any of the statutory criteria of section 209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA finds that an authorization for California's LSI regulations should be granted.
The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating California's LSI regulations, CARB's submissions, and the public comments from A4A, EPA is granting an authorization to California for its LSI regulations.
My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also entities outside the State who must comply with California's requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by June 4, 2012. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.
As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.
Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review Problem Formulation for the Reassessment of Ecological Risks from the Use of Atrazine.
The meeting will be held on June 12-14, 2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. and on June 15, 2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
•
•
•
Sharlene R. Matten, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0130; fax number: (202) 564-
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0230 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 10-12 ad hoc scientists.
FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.
In 2006, EPA initiated a program called Registration Review to re-evaluate all pesticides on a regular cycle as part of the requirements of the FQPA. The program reviews each pesticide active ingredient every 15 years to make sure that as the ability to assess risks to human health and the environment evolves and as policies and practices change, all pesticide products in the marketplace can still be used safely. EPA will soon be reviewing atrazine as part of Registration Review.
An important step in the development of a risk assessment is the problem formulation. In a problem formulation, available information, including stressor sources and characteristics, exposure, ecological effects on plants and animals (
For the June 2012 SAP meeting, EPA will provide an overview of the current state of information on atrazine use, environmental fate (exposure), and ecological effects (toxicity) for assessing the potential ecological risk from the use of atrazine. Emphasis of the SAP meeting will be directed at re-evaluation of micro/mesocosm studies and their impact on a PATI-derived level of concern (LOC) for aquatic plant communities and a strategy for using the PATI-derived LOC for identification of watersheds at risk. The strategy will employ adjustments to control for bias in atrazine concentrations from monitoring data according to sampling frequency. EPA will also include a review of atrazine studies with amphibians published in the open literature since the 2007 SAP on amphibians. This review will explore whether additional effects have been associated with exposure to atrazine and whether there is a relationship between effects reported across various studies and common study design elements. The SAP will be asked to comment on whether the review is thorough and whether uncertainties have been sufficiently characterized.
The Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) presented the results of the atrazine ecological risk assessment that identified the potential for community and population risk to sensitive aquatic species. Information in the revised IRED was based in part on the review and recommendations of the SAP which met in June 2003 to discuss the potential developmental effects of atrazine on amphibians. At that meeting, the Panel concurred with EPA's analysis that there was sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis that atrazine exposure may impact gonadal development in amphibians, but there were insufficient data at that time to confirm or refute the hypothesis. This led EPA to seek additional data through a data call-in (DCI) to reduce uncertainties regarding potential risk to amphibians.
In October 2007, EPA convened a second SAP meeting to evaluate available data on atrazine effects on gonadal development in amphibians. The SAP reviewed the document entitled “White Paper on the Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development” and concurred with EPA that atrazine does not consistently affect amphibian gonadal development. Although the 2003 SAP indicated that African clawed frog (
Also as a condition of the 2003 reregistration, the atrazine registrants were required to develop a monitoring program to determine the extent to which atrazine concentrations associated with corn, sorghum, and sugarcane production may be exceeding levels that could cause effects to aquatic plant communities. Forty watersheds representing high atrazine use locations vulnerable to atrazine runoff were selected for monitoring using a
In December 2007, EPA presented to the SAP the use of the Comprehensive Aquatic Systems Model (CASM) as a tool to determine an LOC that relates time variable monitoring data to effects identified in a series of microcosm and mesocosm studies. The SAP recommended that EPA:
1. Work with the CASM-Atrazine model to make the population time series more realistic;
2. Provide a better validation of this model, and
3. Conduct a more comprehensive sensitivity analysis.
In May 2009, EPA presented a simpler alternative to the CASM-based approach to relate surface water monitoring data to the microcosm and mesocosm data, called the PATI. Other issues presented at this meeting included a revised assessment of the microcosm and mesocosm exposure profiles, an update on the ecological monitoring program results, interpretation of the monitoring results with PATI, identification of the watershed factors driving atrazine runoff, and extrapolation of those results to the entire atrazine use area to identify other areas where atrazine exposures may exceed the LOC. The 2009 Panel suggested that both the CASM-Atrazine model (presented by Syngenta) and PATI were suitable assessment tools for atrazine. The PATI model was recommended by the SAP as a generic assessment tool for developing an LOC, while CASM was recommended by the SAP as a site-specific assessment tool because of the need for extensive site-specific data. The Panel noted that a limitation in the CASM model is the lack of understanding of the sensitivity of model predictions with correlations among model parameters. The SAP recommended that EPA re-evaluate the meso/microcosm data set for study quality and concentration-specific effects, and provided additional citations for meso/microcosm studies to consider including in the assessment. They also recommended using a probabilistic approach to determine the LOC. The SAP concurred with EPA's incorporation of depth to impervious layer and slope to identify vulnerable watersheds for atrazine runoff as part of the atrazine vulnerability index. They also cautioned EPA that several watershed factors such as atrazine use intensity and rainfall are temporally dependent and, therefore, should not be considered minimum criteria in the vulnerability index.
EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available at least 15 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at
FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on November 19, 1990, to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy issues.
Concerning the CAAAC, please contact Pat Childers, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA (202) 564-1082, Fax (202) 564-1352 or by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation (Mail code 6102 A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. For information on the Permits, New Source Review and Toxics subcommittee, please contact Liz Naess at (919) 541-1892. For information on the Tailoring Rule Permit Streamlining Workgroup, please contact Juan Santiago at (919) 541-1084. Additional Information on these meetings, CAAAC, and its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web site:
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Pat Childers at (202) 564-1082 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), Pesticides Operations and Management (POM) Working Committee will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on May 30, 2012 and ending May 31, 2012. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on Monday, May 30, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday May 31, 2012.
To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at EPA Region Five Metcalf Office Building, 12th Floor, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL.
Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5561; fax number: (703) 305-1850; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any discussion between EPA and SFIREG on FIFRA field implementation issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. You are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and those who sell, distribute or use pesticides, as well as any Non Government Organization.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003. Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
1. EPA expectations of State Lead Agencies and Regions in pesticide cooperative agreement negotiations.
2. Pyrethroid Label Issues.
3. Phase 2 Fumigant Label Changes.
4. Non cropland label language—evaluate existing position, propose remedies.
5. Development of recommendations on the “hot compost” issue—how to deal with downstream effects of pesticide application that applicator can't control.
6. Impact of United States Department of Agriculture record keeping cuts.
7. Distributor label enforcement initiative coordination.
8. Classification of methomyl containing products as Restricted Use Pesticides.
9. State Pesticide Residency Program—Registration Division.
10. Cooperative Agreement Grant Template.
11. Section 18 Training Tool.
12. Agency's Revised Rodenticide Risk Mitigation Decision for Professional Use Rodenticides.
This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the meeting without further notification.
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplinary areas to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and four SAB Committees described in this notice. Appointments are anticipated to be filled by the start of Fiscal Year 2013.
Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than May 4, 2012.
Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below may submit a paper copy by the Designated Federal Officers for the committees, as identified below. General inquiries regarding the work of the CASAC and SAB or SAB committees may also be directed to them.
The SAB Drinking Water Committee provides advice on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on drinking water issues. Members should have one or more of the following disciplines:
The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee provides advice on technical issues related to the science and research to protect and restore the health of ecosystems. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines:
The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs.
The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations of experts in environmental economics to serve on the EEAC
The Radiation Advisory Committee provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on RAC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines:
Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which nominees are to be considered. The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vita; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this nomination opportunity. Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public comment process described below, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact the Designated Federal Officer for the committee, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgement will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of the committee; and any concerns the nominee has regarding membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for a license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder (OFF)—Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515). Notice is also hereby given of the filing of applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) for a license.
Interested persons may contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by telephone at (202) 523-5843 or by email at
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published in the
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Cynthia Ayouch—Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829). Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board published in the
1. On page 15755, in center of the page on the second column, under the heading Final Approval Under OMB Delegated Authority of the Revision, Without Extension, of the Following Reports, lines 9 through 12, correct:
“
“
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the
The current rate of 10
Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is
The current rate of 10
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to Ron Otten, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
National Quitline Data Warehouse (OMB No. 0920-0856, exp. 7/31/2012)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Despite the high level of public knowledge about the adverse effects of smoking, tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in the United States. Tobacco use results in approximately 440,000 deaths annually, including approximately 38,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure. Adults who smoke contribute to $92 billion annually in lost worker productivity, and die an average of 14 years earlier than nonsmokers. Although the prevalence of current smoking among adults decreased significantly since its peak in the 1960s, overall smoking prevalence among U.S. adults has remained virtually unchanged during the past five years. Large disparities in smoking prevalence continue to exist among members of racial/ethnic minority groups and individuals of low socioeconomic status.
The National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP) was established by CDC to reduce tobacco use and tobacco-related disease, disability, and death. The NTCP's four goal areas are: (1) The prevention of initiation of tobacco use among young people, (2) the elimination of nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke, (3) the promotion of quitting among adults and young people, and (4) the elimination of tobacco-related disparities. Essential elements of this approach include state, community, and health systems interventions and assessments of their impact; cessation services; media campaigns designed to educate the public about the harmful effects of tobacco; surveillance; and program evaluation. Many interventions are designed to serve individuals who are at highest risk for tobacco-related health problems due to disparities among demographic subgroups in the U.S. in their tobacco use.
Quitlines are effective, population-based interventions that increase successful quitting. Quitlines provide telephone-based tobacco cessation services that help tobacco users quit through individualized, tailored counseling and self-help materials. Quitline counseling that includes counselor-initiated calls or proactive counseling has been shown to increase the odds of tobacco abstinence by approximately 60%. Tobacco cessation quitlines overcome many of the barriers to tobacco cessation classes and traditional clinics because they are free and available at the caller's convenience. They are also cost-effective because they offer multiple services centrally that may be unavailable locally. The demand for quitline services has increased over time. Unfortunately, quitlines remain under-funded and services are not available to everyone who seeks to access them. CDC estimates that 6 to 8 percent of tobacco users could potentially be reached by quitlines, however—primarily due to lack of resources—only 1 to 2 percent of tobacco users are currently using quitlines.
CDC has directly supported state quitlines since 2004, when CDC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) created the National Network of Tobacco Cessation Quitlines Initiative to provide greater access to counseling for tobacco cessation. As part of the Initiative, NCI established a toll-free national portal number, 1-800-QUIT-NOW, which automatically transfers callers to their state quitline. Quitlines now exist in all U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories.
In 2009, CDC used one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding to support expansion of quitline services and standardization of the client-level information collected in conjunction with those services. In 2010, CDC established the National Quitline Data Warehouse (NQDW) to compile national information about quitline services based on uniform caller intake and follow-up protocols (OMB No. 0920-0856, exp. 7/31/2012). The Minimum Data Set for this information collection was developed in collaboration with a number of stakeholders and tobacco control organizations, including the North American Quitline Consortium (NAQC). Information collected through the NQDW is being used to quantify and improve quitline services and to plan and assess the effectiveness of tobacco control programs, including the NTCP. This information collection is authorized by the Public Health Service Act.
CDC requests OMB approval to continue information collection for
The Intake Questionnaire will be administered to an estimated 730,000 callers per year across all states, the District of Columbia, and participating U.S. territories. The estimated burden for completing the Intake Questionnaire interview is ten minutes for callers who seek personal counseling or services, and one minute for callers who seek information on behalf of someone else. A seven-month Follow-up Questionnaire will be administered to an average of 28,900 callers per year. The estimated burden per response is seven minutes.
In addition, the Tobacco Control Manager for each state, district, or territory will be asked to complete a quarterly, web-based Quitline Services Questionnaire describing the services provided through their quitline. The estimated burden per response is seven minutes.
All information will be collected electronically. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 and send comments to Ron Otten, at 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System exp. 9/30/2012—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (known as the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), 42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)) requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program shall annually report to the Secretary through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (1) Pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program, and (2) the identity of each embryo laboratory used by such ART program and whether the laboratory is certified or has applied for such certification under the Act. The required information is currently reported by ART programs to CDC as specified in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB no. 0920-0556, exp. 9/30/2012). CDC seeks to extend OMB approval for a period of three years and to implement a brief, one-time optional feedback survey to clinics for each reporting year. The revised total burden estimate includes an anticipated increase in the number of participating clinics from 430 to 440 and an increase in the average number of responses per respondent from 321 to 339. There is a 2-minute increase to the estimated burden per response.
The currently approved program reporting system, also known as the National ART Surveillance System (NASS), includes information about all ART cycles initiated by any of the ART programs in the United States. An ART cycle is considered to begin when a woman begins taking ovarian stimulatory drugs or starts ovarian monitoring with the intent of having embryos transferred. The system also collects information about the pregnancy outcome of each cycle, as well as a number of data items deemed
Respondents are the 484 ART programs in the United States. Approximately 440 clinics are expected to report an average of 339 ART cycles each. Ten percent of responding clinics will be randomly selected to participate in full validation of selected ART cycle records and an abbreviated validation of selected ART cycle records. All information is collected electronically. Respondents have the option of entering data directly into a Web-based National ART Surveillance System (NASS) interface or of transmitting system-compatible files extracted from other record systems. The ART program reporting system allows CDC to publish an annual report to Congress as specified by the FCSRCA and to provide information needed by consumers.
CDC, the data collection contractor, and partner organizations engage in ongoing dialogue to identify opportunities for improvement in NASS. During the period of this Revision request, minor changes to NASS data definitions or similar technical adjustments may be proposed through the Change Request mechanism.
Starting with 2012 data reporting year, CDC plans to implement a brief, one-time optional feedback survey to clinics for each reporting year. The purpose of this survey is to obtain insight into NASS usability issues as well as respondents' perspectives on the usefulness of the information collected.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
Where appropriate, CMS has changed all references to enrollment or enrolling to registration and registering and Medicare billing number to National Provider Identifier. CMS also added a check box to allow physicians and non-physician practitioners to withdraw from the ordering and referring registry. A section to collect information on professional certifications was added for those practitioners who are not professionally licensed. Editorial and formatting corrections were made in response to prior comments received during the approval of the current version of this application. Other minor editorial and formatting corrections were made to better clarify the purpose of this application.
2.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web Site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
CMS proposes to continue to use the Criteria Worksheets (Forms CMS-437A and CMS-437B) for verifying first-time exclusions from the IPPS, for complaint surveys, for its annual 5 percent validation sample, and for facility self-attestation. These forms are related to the survey and certification and Medicare approval of the IPPS-excluded rehabilitation units and rehabilitation hospitals.
For rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units already excluded from the IPPS, annual onsite re-verification surveys by the SA are not required. These hospitals and units will be provided with a copy of the appropriate CMS-437 Worksheet at least 120 days prior to the beginning of its cost reporting period, so that the hospital/unit official may complete and sign an attestation statement and complete and return the appropriate CMS-437A or CMS-437B at least 120 days prior to the beginning of its cost reporting period. Fiscal Intermediaries (FIs) will continue to verify, on an annual basis, compliance with the 60 percent rule (42 CFR 412.29(b)(2)) for rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation units through a sample of medical records and the SA will verify the medical director requirement.
The SA will maintain the documents unless instructed otherwise by the RO. The SA will notify the RO at least 60 days prior to the end of the rehabilitation hospital's/unit's cost reporting period of the IRF's compliance or non-compliance with the payment requirements. The information collected on these forms, along with other information submitted by the IRF is necessary for determining exclusion from the IPPS. Hospitals and units that have already been excluded need not reapply for exclusion. These facilities will automatically be reevaluated yearly to determine whether they continue to meet the exclusion criteria.
In this PRA package, both forms have been revised.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web Site address at
In commenting on the proposed information collections please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in one of the following ways by
1.
2.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
4.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at
To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB desk officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (#219) entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry on Statistical Evaluation of Stability Data, VICH GL51.”
This draft guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This draft VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommendations on how to use stability data generated in accordance with the principles detailed in the VICH guidance entitled “Stability Testing of New Veterinary Drug Substances and Medicinal Products, GL3(R)” to propose a retest period or shelf life in a registration application.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by June 4, 2012.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Mai Huynh,Center for Veterinary Medicine, (HFV-142),Food and Drug Administration,7500 Standish Place,Rockville, MD 20855,240-276-8273,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (#219) entitled, “Draft Guidance for Industry on Statistical Evaluation of Stability Data, VICH GL51.” In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, the European Federation of Animal Health, the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, and one representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.
The VICH Steering Committee held a meeting on November 14, 2011, and agreed that the draft guidance document entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry on Statistical Evaluation of Stability Data, VICH GL51” should be made available for public comment. This draft VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommendations on how to use stability data generated in accordance with the principles detailed in the VICH guidance entitled, “Stability Testing of New Veterinary Drug Substances and Medicinal Products, GL3(R)” to propose a retest period or shelf life in a registration application. This draft guidance describes when and how extrapolation can be considered when proposing a retest period for a drug substance or a shelf life for a veterinary medicinal product that extends beyond the period covered by available data from the stability study under the long-term storage condition.
This draft guidance addresses the evaluation of stability data that should be submitted in registration applications for new molecular entities and associated veterinary medicinal products. The draft guidance provides recommendations on establishing retest periods and shelf lives for drug substances and veterinary medicinal products intended for storage at or below “room temperature.” It covers stability studies using single- or multi-factor designs and full or reduced designs.
FDA and the VICH Expert Working Group will consider comments about the draft guidance document.
This draft guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this draft guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
On March 8, 2012, HUD published a notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on applicable parts of the March 8, 2012, notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. All submissions and communications must refer to “Rental Assistance Demonstration:Notice of Web Availability and Request for Comments” docket number FR-5630-N-01. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1.
2.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule. Also, to expedite review of public comments, it is recommended commenters should organize their comments by specific topical areas and section numbers and label those areas accordingly.
To assure a timely response, please electronically direct requests for further information to this email address:
On March 8, 2012, at 77 FR 14029, HUD published in the