Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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 Personnel Management.
Final rule.
OPM is amending its regulations to grant Federal employees residing in King George County, Virginia, a partial exemption from the political activity restrictions in the Hatch Act, and to add King George County to its regulatory list of designated localities. The amendment reflects OPM's determination that King George County meets the criteria in the Hatch Act and OPM regulations for a partial exemption to issue.
This rule is effective June 6, 2012.
Jo-Ann Chabot, Office of the General Counsel, United States Office of Personnel Management, (202) 606-1700.
The Hatch Act, at 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2) and (3), prohibits Federal employees from becoming candidates for partisan political office and from soliciting, accepting, or receiving political contributions. However, 5 U.S.C. 7325, authorizes OPM to prescribe regulations permitting employees in certain communities to participate in local elections for partisan political office without regard to the prohibitions in 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2) and (3) only if the requirements described in section 7325 are met. The first requirement is that the community or political subdivision must be located in Maryland or Virginia, and in the immediate vicinity of the District of Columbia. Alternatively, the majority of the community's registered voters must be employed by the United States Government. The second requirement is that OPM must determine that it is in the domestic interest of the employees to permit that political participation because of special or unusual circumstances existing in the community or political subdivision. These statutory requirements are reflected in 5 CFR 733.107(a). Under 5 CFR part 733, the exemption from the prohibitions in 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2) and (3) is a partial exemption because in 5 CFR 733.103-733.106, OPM has established limitations on political participation by most Federal employees residing in these designated municipalities and subdivisions.
On August 22, 2011, OPM issued a proposed rule at 72 FR 39582 to add King George County, Virginia, to this regulatory list of designated localities at 5 CFR 733.107(c). In its notice of proposed rulemaking, OPM noted that King George County, Virginia, had fulfilled the statutory requirements for a partial exemption to issue and proposed the addition of King George County to the regulatory list of designated localities. 76 FR 52287 (August 22, 2011). OPM also placed a legal notice in the print edition of
Therefore, OPM is adding King George County to its list of designated localities at 5 CFR 733.107(c). When this rule becomes effective, Federally employed residents of King George County will be permitted under 5 CFR 733.103 to participate in the following activities:
(1) Run as independent candidates for election to partisan political office in elections for local county office in King George County;
(2) Solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution as, or on behalf of, an independent candidate for partisan political office in elections for local office in King George County;
(3) Accept or receive a political contribution on behalf of an individual who is a candidate for local partisan political office and who represents a political party;
(4) Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated volunteer services as an independent candidate, or on behalf of an independent candidate, for local partisan political office, in connection with the local elections of King George County; and
(5) Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated volunteer services on behalf of an individual who is a candidate for local partisan political office and who represents a political party.
(1) Run as the representative of a political party for local partisan political office;
(2) Solicit a political contribution on behalf of an individual who is a candidate for local partisan political office and who represents a political party;
(3) Knowingly solicit a political contribution from any Federal employee, except as permitted under 5 U.S.C. 7323(a)(2)(A)-(C).
(4) Accept or receive a political contribution from a subordinate;
(5) Solicit, accept, or receive uncompensated volunteer services from a subordinate for any political purpose;
(6) Participate in political activities:
○ While they are on duty:
○ While they are wearing a uniform, badge, or insignia that identifies the employing agency or instrumentality or the position of the employee;
○ While they are in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof; or
○ While using a Government-owned or leased vehicle or while using a privately owned vehicle in the discharge of official duties.
Sections 733.103 and 733.104 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, do not apply to individuals, such as career senior executives and employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who are employed in the agencies or positions listed in 5 CFR 733.105(a). These individuals are subject to the more stringent limitations described in 5 CFR 733.105 and 733.106.
Individuals who require advice concerning specific political activities, and whether an activity is permitted or prohibited under 5 CFR 733.103-733.106, should contact the United States Office of Special Counsel at (800) 854-2824 or (202) 254-3650. Requests for Hatch Act advisory opinions may be made by email to:
King George County will be listed after Herndon, Virginia, and before
This regulation has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the changes will affect only employees of the Federal Government.
Political activities (Government employees).
Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 733 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 7325; sec. 308 of Pub. L. 104-93, 109 Stat. 961, 966 (Jan. 6, 1996)
(c) * * *
In Virginia
King George County June 6, 2012.
Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.
Final rule.
The Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is establishing and implementing procedures for the transfer of excess computers or other technical equipment for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area.
Mr. Michael R. Johnson, Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA on (202) 720-9779 or by Email at
A proposed rule was published in the
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a non-significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This rule implements Section 14220 of the 2008 Farm Bill. It is expected that the benefits that accrue to cities, towns, and local government entities in rural areas from the receipt of excess USDA computers and technical equipment will exceed the costs to USDA in providing such equipment.
USDA certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520), the information collection is currently approved under OMB control number 0505-0023.
This 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 13132, Federalism, and does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Provisions of this 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 rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and therefore a written statement is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental review of Federal programs, and does not establish federal financial assistance or direct Federal development with State and local governments, and is therefore outside the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, and does not have tribal implications or impose unfunded mandates with Indian tribes.
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. This rule requires one letter from requestors that can be sent electronically to USDA. USDA will continue to seek other avenues to increase electronically submitted information.
Computers, Excess, Excess computers, Excess government property, Government property, Other technical equipment, Personal property, Technical equipment.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture adds 7 CFR part 3203 to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2206b.
This part sets forth the procedures to be utilized by USDA when transferring excess USDA computers or other technical equipment to an organization for the purposes of distribution to a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2206b.
To be eligible under this part:
(a) A city, town, or local government entity must be located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A).
(b) A designated organization must:
(1) Have the documented capability to refurbish and distribute excess computers or other technical equipment;
(2) Serve the interest of cities, towns, or local government entities in rural areas; and
(3) Have been designated by an official of a city, town, or local government entity in a rural area to receive excess computers or other technical equipment under this part.
(1) A city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; and
(2) Any urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
(a) Each agency head will designate, in writing, an authorized official to approve transfers of excess computers or other technical equipment under this part consistent with the Department's policies on personal property management.
(b) Excess computers or other technical equipment must first be internally screened to ensure it is not needed elsewhere in the Department.
(c) To receive information concerning the availability of USDA excess computers or other technical equipment, an eligible recipient's PMO should contact any USDA office near to its location.
(d) The USDA employee responsible for personal property, at the office contacted, will review the request for eligibility of the recipient and the availability of excess computers or other technical equipment. The USDA employee will inform the requestor of the outcome of the review (e.g. eligibility, the availability of excess computers or other technical equipment).
(e) Eligible recipients will express their interest in receiving property under this part by submitting a request, on letterhead paper (electronic copy is
(1) Type of excess computers or other technical equipment requested (should include specifications);
(2) Justification for eligibility (see § 3203.2);
(3) Contact information of the requestor;
(4) Logistical information such as when and how the property will be picked up; and
(5) Information on the recipient's designated organization (company name, contact person and phone number) that is designated to receive and refurbish the property for the eligible recipient along with a copy of the agreement between the recipient and its designated organization.
(f) Excess computers or other technical equipment should be inspected before the property is transferred or the USDA agency should be contacted to verify the condition of the property.
(g) If the condition of the property is acceptable, the recipient or its designated organization will coordinate with the USDA contact for transfer of the property. Since the USDA agency office may have several requests for property, it is critical that the recipient or its designated organization contact USDA as soon as possible. Property will usually be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, taking into account fair and equitable distribution of excess computers or other technical equipment to all eligible recipients.
(h) Transfers will be accomplished using the appropriate USDA property transfer form. The transfer form must contain the following statement: “Property listed on this form is being transferred pursuant to the provisions in 7 CFR Part 3203.” The form must be signed by an authorized official of the USDA agency and an official of the recipient organization.
(i) A copy of the request that transferred the property must be attached to the transfer order and kept in the USDA agency's files.
(j) When property is transferred to a designated organization, a copy of the completed transfer document will be sent to the eligible recipient government entity for its records. Eligible recipients are responsible for following up with the designated organization they have designated for the final receipt of the property.
(k) In cases where an agency receives competing requests for excess computers or other technical equipment, to the extent permitted by law, the agency shall give full consideration to such factors as national defense requirements, emergency needs, energy conservation, preclusion of new procurement, fair and equitable distribution, transportation costs, and retention of title in the Government.
(l) Prior to transferring any property pursuant to this Act, the transferring agency must remove data from the excess computers or other technical equipment (memory or any kind of data storage device) according to accepted sanitization procedures. To the maximum extent practicable, the transferring agency must remove data using a means that does not remove, disable, destroy, or otherwise render unusable the excess computers or other technical equipment or components. It is imperative that agencies take the necessary steps to ensure that no personal computer, server, external storage device, or related electronic component is transferred that might contain sensitive or confidential information. See Departmental Manual 3575-001, Security Controls in the System Life Cycle/System Development Life Cycle, for additional guidance.
There is no dollar limitation on excess computers or other technical equipment obtained under this part.
(a) Only an authorized USDA official may approve the transfer of excess computers or other technical equipment under this part.
(b) Excess computers or other technical equipment may be transferred for the purpose of cannibalization, provided that the requestor submits a statement clearly indicating that cannibalization of the requested property will have greater benefit than utilization of the item in its existing form. Cannibalization is a secondary use of equipment and, therefore, these requests are considered subordinate to requests for primary use.
(c) Designated organizations will only receive property for cannibalization when it has been specifically requested by the recipient and the cannibalized parts must only be used in computers or other technical equipment destined for eligible recipients.
Title of ownership to excess computers or other technical equipment transferred under this part shall automatically pass to the recipient once the transferring agency and recipient or designated organization sign the transfer form indicating that the designated organization has received the property.
The designated organization must pay any costs associated with packaging and transportation of the property unless it has made other arrangements. The designated organization must remove property from the USDA agency's premises within 15 calendar days after being notified that the property is available for pickup, unless otherwise coordinated with the USDA agency. If the recipient decides prior to picking up or removing the property that it no longer wants the property, it must notify the USDA agency that approved the transfer request that the property is no longer needed.
(a) USDA requires all excess computers or other technical equipment received by an eligible recipient pursuant to this part be placed into use within one year of receipt of the property and used for at least one year thereafter. The recipient's PMO must maintain accountable records for such property during this time period.
(b) GSA requires that all excess personal property given to non-federal recipients be reported each fiscal year. USDA agencies that transfer property under this part must report the transfers in their annual reports to OPPM and include both the recipient and organization names. OPPM will review the reports for accuracy, as well as fair and equitable distribution of the excess computers or other technical equipment, before submitting to GSA.
When property received under this part is no longer needed by the recipient, it must be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner that is not detrimental or dangerous to public health or safety and in accordance with all Federal, State and local laws.
USDA assumes no liability with respect to accidents, bodily injury, illness, or any other damages or loss related to excess computers or other technical equipment transferred under this part. The recipient/designated organization is advised to insure or otherwise protect itself and others as appropriate.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. That AD currently requires inspections to detect cracking or corrosion of the fail-safe straps between the side fitting of the rear spar bulkhead at body station 955 and the skin; and follow-on and corrective actions. This new AD expands the applicability; and adds an inspection for cracking in the fail-safe strap, and repair or replacement if necessary. This AD was prompted by additional reports of cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41 airplanes; we have also received a report of a crack found in the “T” fitting that connects the fail-safe strap to the outboard edge of the pressure deck. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking or corrosion of the fail-safe straps and the “T” fittings, which could result in cracking of adjacent structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
This AD is effective June 11, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 11, 2012.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of November 1, 2004 (69 FR 57636, September 27, 2004, as referenced in 70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-19-06 R1, amendment 39-14313 (70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005). That AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) asked that we include airplanes in the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011) that have been modified with winglets, in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE. APB stated that it completed an analysis of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, and determined that the defined rework limits are valid when winglets are installed. APB added that including these airplanes will reduce the effort to support requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) to the NPRM.
We acknowledge APB's request to include airplanes modified with winglets in accordance with the referenced STC in the applicability of this AD. We received an analysis package from APB which verifies that the compliance information included in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, is adequate to provide an acceptable level of safety for airplanes equipped with those winglets. Those airplanes are listed in the effectivity section of Revision 2 of this service bulletin, which is identified in the applicability section of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard. However, since the referenced STC does not affect accomplishment of the requirements of this AD, we have clarified that an AMOC is not necessary for these airplanes by adding this provision in new Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. We have also reidentified subsequent notes.
Boeing noted that in the Supplementary Information section of the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011), there is an error under “Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued.” Boeing asked for a correction to the “flight cycles” data in the sentence “Fail-safe straps were repaired on 33 airplanes with total accumulated flight cycles ranging from 39,886 to 89,236.” Boeing stated that the correct flight cycles range is “9,250 to 38,490,” and the correct flight hours range is “39,886 to 89,236,” as published in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010.
We agree with Boeing that there is an error in the number of flight cycles specified under “Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued;” the correct number of flight cycles was inadvertently omitted
Boeing asked that we enhance the clarity of the unsafe condition that is given as the reason for issuing the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011) because the “T” fittings should not be included in the unsafe condition. Boeing noted that the proposed actions are for detecting and repairing corrosion or cracking of the fail-safe straps. Boeing added that inspections of the “T” fitting were added to Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, so that a removed/kept “T” fitting would be installed in a condition that contains no detectable damage around the three fastener holes that connect to the fail-safe strap. Boeing stated that the inspections are intended only to increase damage detection prior to installation of a kept “T” fitting.
We agree that emphasizing the fail-safe strap is the main issue in this AD; however, we do not agree that the unsafe condition should be changed to remove the reference to the “T” fittings. Some “T” fitting cracks have been reported since issuance of the existing AD, as noted in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010; therefore, the “T” fitting is part of the unsafe condition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Continental Airlines (CAL) asked that we change paragraph (k) of the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011) to include contacting Boeing with corrosion damage details to obtain further repair instructions and/or approval. CAL stated that paragraph (k) of the NPRM requires that the corrosion on the fail-safe straps be repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010. CAL added that paragraph 3.B.7 of the Accomplishment Instructions specifies that if corrosion is found on the fail-safe straps, it should be removed as given in Chapter 51-10-02 of the Boeing 767 Structural Repair Manual (SRM). CAL noted that it did not find any information pertaining to the fail-safe straps when reviewing the SRM for the correct rework limits. CAL believes the corrosion removal instructions are incomplete.
We agree that corrosion removal instructions specified in Chapter 51-10-02 of the SRM do not specifically identify how to blend out corrosion on the fail-safe straps. That chapter contains general procedures for repairing corrosion (which apply to the fail-safe straps), which include inspection, repair, and rework limits but does not contain specific procedures for removing corrosion from fail-safe straps.
We have received Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012. That revision removes the reference to the SRM in Step 3.B.7., and instead specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions. Therefore we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to specify that where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair, this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (o) of this AD.
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, also adds notes and revised steps to provide flexibility and revised figures to correct errors. These changes include revising a Standard Operating Practices Manual (SOPM) reference to specify SOPM 20-20-00, adding a fastener code to Figure 28 that was omitted, and revising cable identification labels in Figures 32 and 34. We have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. We have added Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, to paragraph (n) of this AD to give credit for doing actions before the effective date of this AD, using that revision.
CAL asked that certain references in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, be changed, as follows:
CAL stated that the use of the procedures in the Standard Wiring Practices Manual, Section 20-20-00, should be allowed for the resistance check of bonding fasteners during the panel installation. CAL stated that the standard operating manual reference specified in the resistance check of bonding fasteners during the panel installation does not provide the maximum resistance value.
CAL noted that Figure 28 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, which identifies Fastener Code “B,” is missing from the top corner of the panel.
CAL also noted that the circle control numbers identified in Figures 32 and 34 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, do not match the aileron control cables and work instructions. CAL stated that the control cable turnbuckle body station locations are reversed.
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns regarding the referenced figures and SOPM. The actions specified in the SOPM and those figures are only referred to in the service bulletin for optional guidance. As stated previously, Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, corrects these errors. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
We have made the following changes to this AD:
• Revised certain headers throughout this AD.
• Redesignated Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011) as paragraph (g)(3) in this AD, and redesignated subsequent notes accordingly.
• Revised the heading for and wording of paragraph (n) of this AD; this change has not changed the intent of that paragraph.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously—and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 10288, February 24, 2011).
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 390 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective June 11, 2012.
This AD supersedes AD 2004-19-06 R1, Amendment 39-14313 (70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005).
This AD applies to Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012.
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by additional reports of cracks in 51 fail-safe straps on 41 airplanes; we have also received a report of a crack found in the “T” fitting that connects the fail-safe strap to the outboard edge of the pressure deck. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking or corrosion of the fail-safe straps and the “T” fittings, which could result in cracking of adjacent structure and consequent reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
These inspection requirements are retained from AD 2004-19-06 R1, Amendment 39-14313 (70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005). For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes having line numbers 1 through 931 inclusive: Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after November 1, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-19-06 R1, Amendment 39-14313, 70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005), whichever occurs later, perform a detailed inspection and eddy current inspection to detect cracking or corrosion of the fail-safe straps between the side fitting of the rear spar bulkhead at body station (BS) 955 and the skin, per Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, dated September 26, 2002; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012. Doing the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) If no crack or corrosion is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 36 months, whichever occurs first, until paragraph (i) of this AD is done.
(2) If any crack or corrosion is found, before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (o) of this AD.
(3) For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
These inspection requirements are retained from AD 2004-19-06 R1, Amendment 39-14313 (70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005). For airplanes identified in paragraph (g) of this AD on which the fail-safe strap has been replaced before November 1, 2004: Do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD within 12,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the replacement.
Steps 2 and 8 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, dated September 26, 2002, refer incorrectly to Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 32-00-20 for guidance on opening the MLG doors; the correct reference is Boeing 767 AMM 32-00-15, which is referred to in steps 3 and 7 of the Work Instructions. Step 2 also should state “Open Main Landing Gear (MLG) doors” instead of “Open Main Landing Green (MLG) doors.”
Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Perform detailed and eddy current inspections to detect cracking and/or corrosion of the fail-safe straps between the side fitting of the rear spar bulkhead at BS 955 and the skin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012. If no crack or corrosion is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph ends the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (g)(1) of this AD.
Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do an ultrasonic inspection of the fail-safe strap for cracking, and all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. If no crack is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
If any corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the corrosion, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012; except where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with paragraph (o) of this AD.
If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012; except where Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Accomplishing the fail-safe strap trim repair in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD only on the side of the airplane where the repair was done. Replacing the fail-safe strap with a replacement strap that has the revised edge configuration in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD only on the side of the airplane where the replacement was done.
For any replacement strap that does not have a revised edge configuration, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012: Within 12,000 flight cycles after doing the replacement, accomplish the inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight cycles or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Replacing the fail-safe strap with a replacement strap that has the revised edge configuration in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, ends the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD only on the side of the airplane where the replacement was done.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) through (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 1, dated August 11, 2006; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-19-06, Amendment 39-13800 (69 FR 57636, September 27, 2004); and AD 2004-19-06 R1, Amendment 39-14313 (70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005); are approved as AMOCs for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as applicable.
For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle
(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the
(i) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 3, dated February 6, 2012, approved for IBR June 11, 2012.
(ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, Revision 2, dated January 15, 2010, approved for IBR June 11, 2012.
(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0100, dated September 26, 2002; approved for IBR November 1, 2004 (69 FR 57636, September 27, 2004, as referenced in 70 FR 58000, October 5, 2005).
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; email
(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 7, 2012. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 7, 2012.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
For Examination—
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
* * * Effective Upon Publication
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 7, 2012. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 7, 2012.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, andsafety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3)does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
RESCINDED: On March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18683), the FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 30833, Amdt No. 3470 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.33. The following 46 entries for Denver, CO, and 1 entry for Camden, AR, effective 31 May, 2012, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice of FY 2011 schedule of fees.
The Commission charges fees to designated contract markets and registered futures associations to recover the costs incurred by the Commission in the operation of its program of oversight of self-regulatory organization rule enforcement programs, specifically National Futures Association, a registered futures association, and the designated contract markets. The calculation of the fee amounts charged for FY 2011 by this notice is based upon an average of actual program costs incurred during FY 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Mark Carney, Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5477, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581. For information on electronic payment, contact Jennifer Fleming, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5034.
This notice relates to fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations
The fees charged by the Commission to the SROs are designed to recover program costs, including direct labor costs and overhead. The overhead rate is calculated by dividing total Commission-wide overhead direct program labor costs into the total amount of the Commission-wide overhead pool. For this purpose, direct program labor costs are the salary costs of personnel working in all Commission programs. Overhead costs consist generally of the following Commission-wide costs: indirect personnel costs (leave and benefits), rent, communications, contract services, utilities, equipment, and supplies. This formula has resulted in the following overhead rates for the most recent three years (rounded to the nearest whole percent): 144 percent for fiscal year 2008, 147 percent for fiscal year 2009, and 153 percent for fiscal year 2010.
Under the formula adopted by the Commission in 1993, the Commission calculates the fee to recover the costs of its rule enforcement reviews and examinations, based on the three-year average of the actual cost of performing such reviews and examinations at each SRO. The cost of operation of the Commission's SRO oversight program varies from SRO to SRO, according to the size and complexity of each SRO's program. The three-year averaging computation method is intended to smooth out year-to-year variations in cost. Timing of the Commission's reviews and examinations may affect costs—a review or examination may span two fiscal years and reviews and examinations are not conducted at each SRO each year.
As noted above, adjustments to actual costs may be made to relieve the burden on an SRO with a disproportionately large share of program costs. The Commission's formula provides for a reduction in the assessed fee if an SRO has a smaller percentage of United States industry contract volume than its percentage of overall Commission oversight program costs. This adjustment reduces the costs so that, as a percentage of total Commission SRO oversight program costs, they are in line with the pro rata percentage for that SRO of United States industry-wide contract volume.
The calculation is made as follows: The fee required to be paid to the Commission by each DCM is equal to the lesser of actual costs based on the three-year historical average of costs for that DCM or one-half of average costs incurred by the Commission for each DCM for the most recent three years, plus a pro rata share (based on average trading volume for the most recent three years) of the aggregate of average annual costs of all DCMs for the most recent three years. The formula for calculating the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt = current fee. In this formula, “a” equals the average annual costs, “v” equals the percentage of total volume across DCMs over the last three years, and “t” equals the average annual costs for all DCMs. NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its fee is based simply on costs for the most recent three fiscal years. This table summarizes the data used in the calculations of the resulting fee for each entity:
An example of how the fee is calculated for one exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade, is set forth here:
a. Actual three-year average costs equal $86,901.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5) ($86,901) + (.5) (.2771) ($1,263,214) = $218,442.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in this case $86,901.
As noted above, the alternative calculation based on contracts traded is not applicable to NFA because it is not a DCM and has no contracts traded. The Commission's average annual cost for conducting oversight review of the NFA rule enforcement program during fiscal years 2008 through 2010 was $790,141 (one-third of $2,370,423). The fee to be paid by the NFA for the current fiscal year is $790,141.
Therefore, fees for the Commission's review of the rule enforcement programs at the registered futures associations and DCMs regulated by the Commission are as follows:
The Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to the government by electronic transfer of funds (See 31 U.S.C. 3720). For information about electronic payments, please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202) 418-5034 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is amending its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. Specifically, the Commission is amending its regulations to establish ongoing electronic delivery of data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Such data will facilitate the Commission's development and evaluation of its policies and regulations and will enhance Commission efforts to detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable rates.
1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. The Commission, acting pursuant to sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),
2. Wholesale electricity markets have changed dramatically in recent years:
3. By the mid-1990s, the Commission concluded that, beyond the industry's voluntary efforts, additional measures were needed to address undue discrimination in transmission access. Accordingly, the Commission issued Order Nos. 888
4. In addition to addressing undue discrimination in transmission access, Order No. 888 encouraged the formation of ISOs, reasoning that “ISOs have great potential to assist us and the industry to help provide regional efficiencies, to facilitate economically efficient pricing, and, especially in the context of power pools, to remedy undue discrimination and mitigate market power.”
5. Recognizing the importance of information relating to market trading and market oversight, the Commission issued Order No. 2001
6. Independent market monitoring by RTO and ISO market monitoring units (MMU) is another important means to evaluate market developments and to identify and deter market abuses and manipulation. In Order No. 2000, the Commission identified market monitoring as a basic function of an RTO.
7. While MMUs perform a vital and necessary function in market oversight,
8. The NOPR proposed to obtain ongoing delivery of RTO and ISO data pursuant to the Commission's authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA.
9. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to revise its regulations to require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing, non-public basis, data related to the markets that it administers;
10. The NOPR also emphasized efforts by the Commission to streamline the collection of data it already has the authority to request from public utilities. The Commission noted that it currently requests data from individual RTOs and ISOs on an ad hoc basis. The Commission averred that such ad hoc requests may require more Commission and RTO and ISO resources than the proposed ongoing electronic delivery of this data using an automated process. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to require an automated ongoing data delivery process, in part, to minimize any burden on RTOs and ISOs.
11. In the NOPR, the Commission also addressed the relationship between the Commission and the MMUs. The Commission explained that the NOPR did not seek to displace or modify any of the existing market monitoring functions or any evaluations of market rules and designs performed by the MMUs; rather, the intent of the data collection is to help the Commission detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, inefficient market rules, and ensure just and reasonable rates.
12. Commenters do not dispute the Commission's authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA to require ongoing delivery of data from each RTO and ISO. As PA PUC stated, the proposal to expand the categories of information that RTOs and ISOs have to make available to the Commission is a logical and necessary extension of the Commission's existing authority under sections 301 and 307 of the FPA.
13. Most commenters agree that ongoing delivery of data from each RTO and ISO would assist the Commission in carrying out its monitoring functions.
The Commission correctly recognizes that as markets continue to evolve with increased levels of sophistication, the Commission must continue to evaluate the type of data necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates. Having ongoing, routine access to [RTO and ISO] data will provide greater transparency to the Commission on market activities and allow the Commission to perform systematic, comprehensive analysis to aid in monitoring market behavior and creating effective market rules and efficient market design.[
14. Several commenters agree that an ongoing, automated data delivery process may reduce administrative burdens on the RTOs and ISOs and the Commission when compared with ad hoc data requests.
15. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA state that they understand the Commission's desire to collect information to enhance its market monitoring and surveillance capabilities but question the need for ongoing data transfers to the Commission.
16. The Commission concludes that requiring each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver to the Commission on an ongoing, non-public basis, data related to the markets that each administers will help the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities, as explained below. The Commission finds that the revisions are consistent with the Commission's authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA. In addition, these reforms are expected to reduce administrative burdens on the RTOs and ISOs.
17. EEI/EPSA's joint comments touch on a range of issues regarding the ongoing delivery of data from the RTOs and ISOs. Specifically, they ask why the Commission needs the specified data and question whether such reporting will result in duplicative market monitoring. These datasets are necessary to the Commission's better ensuring that Commission jurisdictional rates are just and reasonable.
18. The Commission's oversight capabilities, and associated data delivery requirements, must keep pace with market developments and evolve along with the markets. A part of the Commission's oversight of the wholesale electricity markets is the evaluation of existing market designs and the effectiveness of current market rules. The ongoing, electronic delivery of specific datasets will enable the Commission to more effectively carry out this function. This data will provide the Commission with empirical information that will augment its ability to assess the effectiveness of Commission-approved market rules and provide better tools to monitor the efficiency of existing market designs in producing just and reasonable rates. Thus, the ongoing delivery of the data sought in this final rule will inform the Commission's continuing evaluation of market rules, regulations, and the development of its policies.
19. Requiring this data does not displace the MMUs' existing efforts to evaluate market rules and market designs or modify any of their market monitoring functions. Nor does the Commission's analysis and monitoring efforts using the data specified in this final rule duplicate the MMUs' existing efforts. For example, because of the Commission's ability to look across all RTO and ISO markets, the Commission is in a unique position to perform cross-market analysis. This cross-market analysis will enhance the Commission's ongoing efforts to improve surveillance and monitoring of the markets and assess the performance of different market designs and rules.
20. The NOPR stated that the electronic delivery of the types of data proposed herein will help to maintain the Commission's access to RTO and ISO data on par with the types and levels of activity in those markets and will help to ensure that rates are just and reasonable.
21. Several commenters urge the Commission to avoid duplicative reporting, given other recent data collection requirements.
22. Consistent with the mandate to avoid duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome regulation,
23. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA encourage the Commission to require RTOs and ISOs to report EQR information for sales conducted within their markets, whether or not the RTOs and ISOs are actual counterparties to the transactions.
24. Despite some similarities in data provided by market participants in their EQRs, we find that the reporting requirements placed on RTOs and ISOs in this final rule facilitate, rather than compromise, the goals of streamlining regulation, reducing regulatory burdens, or eliminating duplicative reporting requirements.
25. First, the nature of the data, the frequency of its collection, and the data format differ between the data submitted in EQRs and the data sought here. Currently, market participants provide contractual and transactional data in their EQRs related to their jurisdictional sales and transmission service in a specified format that is
26. Second, this final rule streamlines the process through which RTOs and ISOs provide data to the Commission by requiring ongoing delivery of such data, instead of relying on periodic, ad hoc requests.
27. Third, no additional regulatory burden is placed on market participants through these requirements, as the data sought is already collected by the RTOs and ISOs and will not be separately collected by the Commission from individual market participants.
28. Accordingly, we find that RTOs' and ISOs' reporting requirements under this final rule do not duplicate market participants' EQR reporting requirements. Based on this finding, we will continue to require individual market participants to submit their EQRs.
29. With respect to certain commenters' concern about the burden on market participants of filing information in EQRs about sales in RTO and ISO markets, we note that RTOs and ISOs may file EQRs on behalf of their members or participants if authorized to do so as their agent.
30. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that much of the information it will receive is, by its nature, commercially sensitive.
31. The Commission stated in the NOPR that it will make publicly available the analysis derived from data that the Commission uses, for example, to support a proposed market rule change, except that the Commission will ensure that confidential information will remain non-public. The Commission also noted that it may direct its staff to issue a public report outside of a rulemaking proceeding with similar protections for confidential or otherwise protected information.
32. Several commenters note that some of the data the Commission is proposing to receive is commercially sensitive and should be protected from release.
33. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA raise concerns about the security of the data transferred to the Commission and the potential for information retained by the Commission to be discoverable under FOIA.
34. As the Commission stated in the NOPR, much of the information that the Commission expects to receive in this proposal is, by its nature, commercially sensitive.
35. The Commission may, of course, make publicly available analyses derived from data that the Commission uses, but insofar as the law allows, the Commission will ensure that confidential information will remain non-public. The Commission's doing these kinds of analyses and making them public is appropriate. Such analyses may be, among other things, in the form of a staff white paper or the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding, both of which are equally appropriate uses of the information collected.
36. The Commission recognizes that public release of certain data may support better investment decisions and better responses to price signals, as Powerex maintains, and also that portions of the information the Commission is seeking from the RTOs and ISOs already may be publicly available. However, the datasets the Commission will receive pursuant to this final rule are expected to contain in large measure the type of information covered under FOIA exemption 4, and would remain non-public.
37. The Commission proposed to require that any data electronically delivered to the Commission be in an XML format that is consistent for all RTOs and ISOs. The Commission stated that it was not proposing that each RTO and ISO materially modify the data prior to electronic delivery. The Commission sought comment on data formatting, noting that XML may not be the preferred format to use when electronically delivering RTO and ISO data.
38. Commenters generally support allowing each RTO and ISO to provide data in its current format with minimal modification, rather than in a format consistent for all RTOs and ISOs.
39. The IRC states that regional differences and the individual market designs of each RTO and ISO may lead to discrepancies when attempting to reconcile these different market rules and products into XML or another common format.
40. Given the various data collection and storage methods used by RTOs and ISOs, we will allow data to be electronically delivered to the Commission in a format consistent with how the data is collected in each RTO and ISO system.
41. We recognize that the current data format and storage procedures used by each RTO and ISO may require that they make certain adjustments before the datasets are electronically delivered to the Commission, which are expected to be minimal. These adjustments, if necessary, will secure dependable, ongoing delivery of the data while preserving the individual character of each RTO's or ISO's datasets. For example, data the Commission is requesting may be stored by an RTO or ISO in a manner such that a particular dataset contains additional details that are unnecessary for Commission analysis. Similarly, an RTO's or ISO's reported times may be stored in various time zones, both within each RTO or ISO and across the RTOs and ISOs. Adjusting such data to either reduce the volume of information delivered to the Commission or to reflect a uniform time zone,
42. As part of the determination not to require a consistent format for all RTOs and ISOs, we will direct that such data be delivered in one of two file types; namely, Comma Separated Value (i.e., CSV) or Tab Delimited.
43. Further, we agree with the IRC that documentation defining each field in the datasets provided by the RTOs and ISOs would assist the Commission in its analysis of the electronic data.
44. Finally, to allow the Commission to stay abreast of any change in how data described in this final rule is collected, we direct each RTO and ISO to notify Commission staff in writing of any such change, 90 days prior to such a change or as soon as practicable once such a change is known. Such a change may necessitate the submission of updated documentation. Notifications of forthcoming changes, and updated documentation when appropriate, will allow the Commission to anticipate and make necessary adjustments to its own management and storage of RTO and ISO data, especially given that the data will not be received in a single consistent format across the RTOs and ISOs.
45. Due to the commercially-sensitive nature of the requested market data, the Commission proposed that each RTO and ISO use a secure data delivery method to provide data to the Commission. Specifically, the Commission proposed that RTO and ISO market data be electronically delivered using the Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) and that access to the server where the data is electronically delivered only be granted to each applicable RTO and ISO and to the Commission.
46. ISO-NE and the IRC do not anticipate problems associated with using SFTP to transfer encrypted market data to the Commission; they expect this method to be straightforward.
47. We adopt the proposal outlined in the NOPR which requires RTO and ISO market data to be electronically delivered using SFTP.
48. The Commission rejects EEI/EPSA's suggestions that the Commission allow RTOs and ISOs to post only non-confidential information on their Web sites or to require the delivery of aggregated data to satisfy the requirement for ongoing delivery to the Commission. Commission use of such postings of non-confidential information or delivery of aggregated information would do little to further the Commission's market surveillance and its evaluation of policies and regulations. And as discussed in greater detail above, data that is electronically delivered pursuant to this final rule likely would be considered non-public.
49. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require ongoing electronic delivery of the data (e.g., the information to be included in the datasets) described below:
1. Supply offers and demand bids for energy and ancillary services—Data on supply offers and demand bids submitted to RTO and ISO markets. This dataset would include all offers and bids for energy and ancillary services. This dataset would also include offers and bids submitted for interchange transactions, as well as those submitted without economic consideration, i.e., self-schedules.
2. Virtual offers and bids—Data on virtual supply offers and virtual demand bids submitted to RTO and ISO markets.
3. Energy/ancillary service awards—Data on market awards for energy and ancillary services. This dataset would include the quantity and price of all market awards for energy and ancillary services. The dataset would also identify resources that are self-scheduled.
4. Capacity market offers, designations, and prices—For RTOs and ISOs with centralized capacity markets, data on capacity offers as well as capacity market outcomes or designations. This data would include the identity of capacity resources, the amount of procured capacity, and the applicable capacity market price.
5. Resource output—Data on resource output data used in market settlements. This dataset would include details used in market settlements, including RTO and ISO dispatch instructions (i.e., the output that a dispatched resource is expected to produce in real-time) for energy or ancillary services, or whether resources are operating at self-scheduled output levels, and measured output levels.
6. Marginal cost estimates—Data on marginal cost estimates; such estimates are typically generated for the potential replacement of supply offers in market power mitigation procedures. This dataset would include all marginal cost estimates that have been developed, and
7. Day-ahead shift factors—Data on shift factors calculated for use in the day-ahead market. This would include generation shift factors, which are factors to be applied to a generator's expected change in output to determine the amount of flow contribution that that change in output will impose on an identified transmission facility or flowgate, and load shift factors, which are factors to be applied to a load's expected change in demand to determine the amount of flow contribution that that change in demand will impose on an identified transmission facility or flowgate. This dataset would not be limited to binding constraints, but should also include all shift factors calculated to address non-binding constraints.
8. FTR data—Data on FTR transactions that may not be publicly posted in all RTO and ISO markets. Specifically, RTOs and ISOs must provide data detailing how all FTRs and allocated rights were acquired, either through RTO and ISO allocation or auction procedures; data detailing whether the acquired allocation positions were converted from positions that collect auction revenue into positions that collect congestion revenue; and data detailing secondary market transactions to the extent that they are available to the RTO and ISO.
9. Internal Bilateral Contracts—Data on the settlement of internal bilateral contracts for energy.
10. Pricing data for interchange transactions—Data on pricing information for scheduled interchanges including eTag IDs, when applicable, in addition to other interchange pricing details and transaction identification. Scheduled interchanges include any transaction between two or more Balancing Authority Areas.
50. The Commission also proposed that descriptive information, such as market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other information that the Commission considers necessary and appropriate to understand and analyze the data described in the NOPR would be included in the delivery of these datasets. The Commission noted that much of the data discussed in the NOPR are already collected and stored by the RTOs and ISOs in order to administer their markets.
51. Finally, the Commission proposed to direct each RTO and ISO to submit a compliance filing within 45 days after the effective date of any final rule in this proceeding, amending its open access transmission tariff to reflect the requirement for the ongoing electronic delivery of data.
52. Most commenters support the Commission's proposal to require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver data described in the NOPR as a means to more effectively carry out Commission functions.
53. Several commenters encouraged the Commission to consider requesting additional data.
54. APPA considers it a substantial shortcoming in the Commission proposal to seek only estimated marginal cost data and not information regarding individual generators' actual costs, revenues, and profits.
55. Several commenters support the Commission's intent to require only data that is collected or stored by each RTO or ISO to be delivered to the Commission.
56. In order to reflect situations where the Commission is requesting data that is either not produced or retained by the RTO or ISO, the IRC requests that the Commission clarify in the final rule that no RTO or ISO will be required to deliver such data.
57. The Commission will adopt the proposal in the NOPR to require ongoing electronic delivery of data related to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and interchange pricing. In addition, the Commission will require each RTO and ISO to provide data on uplift charges and credits. The Commission concludes that the data specified in this final rule will facilitate the Commission's
58. First, we agree with Powerex that uplift charges and credits should be included in this final rule.
59. However, we reject Powerex's request to make certain uplift data, along with other data covered by this rule, publicly available. This data may reveal individual market participant bidding strategies and other commercially-sensitive information. Consistent with our discussion earlier in this final rule, we expect that all data that satisfy the requirements of FOIA exemption 4 would be protected from public disclosure.
60. Second, we agree with the IRC and ISO-NE that there are some data elements not critical to the formation of market outcomes that will not need to be delivered under this final rule. Specifically, the Commission is not requesting the delivery of preliminary entries of bids that are subsequently modified by market participants prior to their submission of a final bid and prior to market closure. In addition, the Commission is seeking shift factor data related to active or binding constraints, not shift factor data associated with non-binding constraints or non-active constraints that is not retained by the RTO or ISO. Also, in response to ISO-NE's comment that it should not be required to deliver information about secondary FTR markets that it no longer administers, we clarify that the Commission does not require delivery of data on secondary markets that are not administered by the RTOs and ISOs or when secondary market transaction data are not provided to the RTO or ISO by market participants.
61. Third, to the extent the RTO or ISO relies on its MMU to produce or retain some of the requested data, we direct the RTO or ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver it to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU to deliver such data directly to the Commission. For instance, IRC indicates that MISO relies on its MMU to calculate certain requested data that form the basis for market power mitigation that is not delivered to the MISO. Market power mitigation data are critical to the proper functioning of RTO and ISO markets and important for facilitating market surveillance and evaluation of Commission policies and regulations. Therefore, in this example, the Commission expects MISO either to direct its MMU to provide MISO with such data so that MISO can then deliver it to the Commission, or MISO can direct its MMU to provide such data to the Commission.
62. With respect to tracking and documenting what the IRC terms as “incremental changes” to the data, we clarify that we may require documentation concerning any change in how the data described in this final rule are collected by each RTO and ISO.
63. Finally, we disagree with APPA that the Commission should seek not only estimated marginal cost data but also individual generators' actual costs, revenues, and profits. In this final rule, the Commission is undertaking a data collection from the RTOs and ISOs that will enable it to better fulfill its statutory responsibilities. In contrast, information on individual generators' actual costs, revenues, and profits is not currently collected by RTOs and ISOs and to obtain such information would require its collection from market participants. At this time, the Commission will not undertake a separate data collection effort from market participants, as proposed by APPA; that is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Furthermore, to the extent the Commission is concerned that a particular seller may be exercising market power, it may seek additional data from that seller, including some or all of the data specified by APPA.
64. The Commission invited comments with respect to the timeframe for electronic delivery of the data to the Commission. The Commission also invited comments on whether the requirements of the final rule should be implemented in phases and, if so, what a potential phased approach should entail.
65. Both ISO-NE and the IRC support phased implementation.
66. The IRC and EEI/EPSA proffer that a twelve-month timeframe would be appropriate.
67. The IRC supports an initial, three-month delivery timeframe for a first, individual dataset but proposes all
68. In response to the requests for additional time to implement the ongoing electronic delivery, the Commission will direct that electronic delivery of all the datasets be fully implemented 210 days after the effective date of this final rule, which is 60 days after publication in the
69. Accordingly, we will direct that all RTOs and ISOs implement the ongoing electronic delivery of at least one dataset no later than 45 days after the effective date of this final rule. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, this initial delivery would include at least all data relating to supply offers for energy, as discussed and defined in the NOPR.
70. We will direct that ongoing, electronic delivery of the remaining datasets be phased in gradually, with delivery of all datasets occurring no later than 210 days after the effective date of this final rule. Descriptive information necessary to understand each dataset, such as market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other information the Commission considers necessary and appropriate to analyze each dataset, should be provided at the same time initial delivery of each applicable dataset begins.
71. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, following the initial delivery of (at least) the data relating to supply offers for energy, in the second phase we will direct that the following datasets be delivered electronically no later than 90 days after the effective date of this final rule: Virtual offers and bids; and demand bids for energy.
72. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, in the third phase we will direct that the following datasets be delivered no later than 150 days after the effective date of this final rule: Marginal cost estimates; energy and ancillary service awards; resource output; internal bilateral contracts; and uplift data.
73. Finally, unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, in the fourth and final phase that ends 210 days after the effective date of this final rule, we will direct that all remaining datasets be delivered, namely: Day-ahead shift factors; supply offer and demand bids for ancillary services; capacity market offers, designations and prices; pricing data for interchange transactions; and FTR data.
74. The Commission proposed that RTOs and ISOs be required to electronically deliver the requested data to the Commission within seven days after each RTO or ISO creates the datasets in a daily market run or otherwise. For data that are updated less frequently than every day, including capacity market results, estimated marginal costs, and FTR data, each RTO or ISO would be expected to electronically deliver such data within seven days after it is created or updated by the RTO or ISO. The Commission also proposed that, in the event an RTO or ISO makes later corrections to the data (i.e., after the original data has been delivered to the Commission), the RTO or ISO would be expected to electronically deliver the corrected data to the Commission within seven days after the correction has been made. The Commission invited comments with respect to the timeframe in which the data described in this NOPR should be electronically delivered to the Commission.
75. The IRC believes that the seven-day requirement would be workable, provided that the RTO or ISO with corrected data can deliver the data to the Commission in a format consistent with the manner in which each RTO or ISO stores the data, with minimal modifications.
76. The IRC interprets the Commission's intent as focused on obtaining data quickly and efficiently, rather than erecting a new compliance program. Towards this end, the IRC requests that the Commission clarify in the final rule that an RTO or ISO will not face compliance penalties in the event that data is not delivered in the specified timeframe, provided that the RTO or ISO is making its best efforts to comply with the rule and provided that the RTO or ISO gives timely notice to the Commission when the RTO or ISO becomes aware that there may be a delay in the delivery of data or some impact on the accuracy or completeness of the data.
77. Further, the IRC states that the possibility exists that RTOs and ISOs will, on occasion, inadvertently produce or deliver inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly formatted data.
78. The Commission will require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver the specified data to the Commission in a format consistent with the manner in which each RTO and ISO collects this data.
79. We cannot make a blanket statement, as requested by the IRC, that the submission of inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly formatted data will not result in a violation of the Commission's regulations or the RTO and ISO tariff. However, as a general matter, the Commission does not intend
80. The Commission stated that the data it is proposing to receive would be limited to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and interchange pricing. The Commission also stated that these datasets would include descriptive information such as market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other information the Commission considers necessary and appropriate to understand and analyze the data described in this NOPR. However, the Commission recognized that markets are not static and, as markets continue to evolve, the Commission may initiate a new rulemaking proceeding in the future to reassess the data necessary for its market monitoring and surveillance efforts and for its policy and decision-making needs.
81. The IRC states that the proposed regulation itself does not specify the data that the RTOs and ISOs will be required to deliver, nor does the regulation specify any process by which the Commission may alter the obligations to provide data.
82. The regulatory text adopted by this final rule sets forth the obligation for RTOs and ISOs to provide data to the Commission. The narrative preamble to that regulatory text, i.e., the final rule, provides additional, specific information about the datasets and details about the electronic delivery formatting, procedures, and security measures.
83. As to future changes in reporting, the Commission anticipates that changes in the datasets to be provided will be made through a rulemaking proceeding.
84. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA encourage the Commission to convene one or more technical conferences to address concerns related to this rulemaking and other Commission data collection efforts.
85. We deny EEI/EPSA's request to hold a technical conference. EEI/EPSA have not raised any issues that have not been adequately addressed in the rulemakings and that would otherwise require a technical conference.
86. The collections of information contained in this final rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information if the collections of information do not display a valid OMB control number.
87. The final rule does not require market participants other than the RTOs and ISOs to report information to the Commission.
88. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the burden estimates in the proposed rule and uses the same estimates here.
89. In this final rule, the Commission did deviate from the proposed rule in several instances. Specifically, the Commission included an additional dataset, uplift, in this final rule. Any increase in burden associated with the inclusion of uplift data, however, should be offset by the decision in this final rule not to require consistent formatting by the RTOs and ISOs.
90. In addition, in this final rule, the Commission also clarifies that, in very limited instances, individual datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or retained by the MMUs. The Commission directed each RTO and ISO either to: (1) Request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver such data to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU to deliver such data directly to the Commission. Any burden associated with the delivery of such data is counted as burden on the RTO or ISO, as each RTO or ISO is responsible for such delivery to the Commission, and not the MMU.
91. The burden imposed by this rule on the RTOs and ISOs is captured through the estimates below.
92. The Commission recognizes that there will be an initial implementation burden associated with providing the Commission with RTO and ISO data. This includes submitting a compliance filing to the Commission, which the
93. For the recurring effort involved in electronically delivering RTO and ISO data to the Commission, the Commission anticipates that the additional burden associated with this rule will be minimal. Any recurring burden would be associated with addressing updates to RTO and ISO data as the data that they process changes and due to occasional errors in the data handling or data upload process.
94. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email:
95. Comments concerning the information collections required in this Final Rule and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at the following email address:
96. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
97. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
98. CAISO is a nonprofit organization with over 54,000 megawatts of capacity and over 25,000 circuit miles of transmission lines.
99. NYISO is a nonprofit organization that oversees wholesale electricity
100. PJM is comprised of more than 700 members including power generators, transmission owners, electricity distributers, power marketers, and large industrial customers and serves 13 states and the District of Columbia.
101. SPP is comprised of 63 members serving 6.2 million households in nine states and has 48,930 miles of transmission lines.
102. MISO is a nonprofit organization with over 145,000 megawatts of installed generation. MISO has over 57,600 miles of transmission lines and serves 13 states and one Canadian province.
103. ISO-NE is a regional transmission organization serving six states in New England. The system is comprised of more than 8,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and over 300 generators.
104. The Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
105. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
106. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
107. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
108. These regulations are effective July 6, 2012. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this ruleis not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 35, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.
16 U.S.C 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
(g) * * *
(4)
The following appendix will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Final rule.
Under section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission remands proposed Transmission Planning (TPL) Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b, submitted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization. The proposed Reliability Standard includes a provision that allows for planned load shed in a single contingency provided that the plan is documented and alternatives are considered and vetted in an open and transparent process. The Commission finds that this provision is vague, unenforceable and not responsive to the previous Commission directives on this matter. Accordingly, the Final Rule remands NERC's proposal as unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, and not in the public interest.
This rule will become effective July 6, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any of the following methods:
•
•
1. Under section 215(d) of the Federal Power Act,
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Approved Reliability Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. On March 16, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 693, approving 83 of the 107 Reliability Standards filed by NERC, including Reliability Standard TPL-002-0.
3. Currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b addresses Bulk-Power System planning and related transmission system performance for single element contingency conditions. Requirement R1 of TPL-002-0b requires that each planning authority and transmission planner “demonstrate through a valid assessment that its portion of the interconnected transmission system is planned such that the network can be operated to supply projected customer demands and projected firm transmission services, at all demand levels over the range of forecast system demands, under the contingency conditions as defined in Category B of Table I.”
Planned or controlled interruption of electric supply to radial customers or some local Network customers, connected to or supplied by the Faulted element or by the affected area, may occur in certain areas without impacting the overall reliability of the interconnected transmission systems. To prepare for the next contingency, system adjustments are permitted, including curtailments of contracted Firm (non-recallable reserved) electric power Transfers.
4. In Order No. 693, the Commission stated that it believes that the transmission planning Reliability Standard should not allow an entity to plan for the loss of non-consequential firm load in the event of a single contingency.
5. In a subsequent clarifying order, the Commission stated that it believed that a regional difference, or a case-specific exception process that can be technically justified, to plan for the loss of firm service would be acceptable in limited circumstances.
6. On March 31, 2011, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of its proposal to revise and clarify footnote `b' “in regard to load loss following a single contingency.”
An objective of the planning process should be to minimize the likelihood and magnitude of interruption of firm transfers or Firm Demand following Contingency events. Curtailment of firm transfers is allowed when
7. NERC supplemented the filing on June 7, 2011, in response to a Commission deficiency letter. NERC explained that “the approach proposed in footnote `b' is equally efficient because many of the stakeholder processes that will be used in footnote `b' planning decisions are already in place, as implemented by FERC in Order No. 890 and in state regulatory jurisdictions.”
8. With respect to review and oversight by NERC and the Regional Entities, NERC submitted that an ERO-specific process would place the ERO in the position of managing and actively participating in a planning process, which conflicts with its role as the compliance monitor and enforcement authority. NERC also stated that neither the ERO nor the Regional Entities will review decisions regarding planned interruptions. Their role will be limited to reviewing whether the registered entity participated in a stakeholder process when planning to interrupt Firm Demand. NERC explained that Regional Entities will have oversight after-the-fact by auditing the entity's implementation of footnote `b' to determine if the entity planned on interrupting Firm Demand and whether the decision by the entity to rely on planned interruption of Firm Demand was vetted through the stakeholder process and qualified as one of the situations identified in footnote `b.'
9. Furthermore, NERC stated that an objective of the planning process should be to minimize the likelihood and magnitude of planned Firm Demand interruptions. NERC contended that, due to the wide variety of system configurations and regulatory compacts, it is not feasible for the ERO to develop a one-size-fits-all criterion for limiting the planned firm load interruptions for Category B events. According to NERC, the standards drafting team evaluated setting a certain magnitude of planned interruption of Firm Demand, but there was no analytical data to support a single value, and it would be viewed as arbitrary.
10. On October 20, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR
11. The Commission proposed to provide further guidance on acceptable approaches to footnote `b' and sought comment on certain options for revising footnote `b', as well as other potential options to solve the concerns outlined in the NOPR. In response to the NOPR, comments were filed by seventeen interested parties.
12. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that NERC's proposed TPL-002-0b does not meet the Commission's Order No. 693 directives, nor is it an equally effective and efficient alternative. Further, the Commission finds that the proposal is vague, potentially unenforceable and may lack safeguards to produce consistent results. On this basis, the Commission remands the proposal to NERC as unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential and not in the public interest. Below, the Commission also provides guidance on acceptable approaches to footnote `b.'
13. The Commission adopts the proposed NOPR finding that the footnote `b' process lacks adequate parameters. The Reliability Standard requires that, when planning to interrupt Firm Demand, the Firm Demand interruption must be “subject to review in an open and transparent stakeholder process that includes addressing stakeholder comments.”
14. Further, the NERC proposal leaves undefined the circumstances in which it is allowable to plan for Firm Demand to be interrupted in response to a Category B contingency. The Commission believes that proposed footnote `b' could be used as a means to override the reliability objective and system performance requirements of the TPL Reliability Standard without any technical or other criteria specified to determine when planning to interrupt Firm Demand would be allowable, and without violating any of the requirements of the TPL Reliability Standard. The TPL Reliability Standard requires that a planner demonstrate through a valid assessment that the transmission system is planned and can be operated to supply projected Firm Demand at all demand levels over a range of forecasted system demands.
15. However, if system performance is not met for any single contingency event(s) under NERC's proposed footnote `b,' a planner could plan to interrupt some portion of Firm Demand to meet system performance requirements thereby overriding the performance requirements of the TPL Reliability Standard. For example, if a planner determines during its annual assessment that for a single bulk-power system transformer contingency other bulk-power system elements would exceed their thermal ratings, a planner would have authority under the standard to plan to interrupt Firm Demand to relieve the exceeded thermal ratings of the bulk-power system elements rather than planning the system to withstand such a single contingency and avoid shedding firm load as the performance requirements of the TPL Reliability Standard require. Therefore, without articulating some bounds on the use of the planned shedding of Firm Demand, there could be instances of multiple exceptions that could affect the robustness of the system. Further, contrary to commenters contentions, NERC's proposal, for example, has no provision to evaluate this cumulative effect of the individual decisions to shed firm.
16. The Commission disagrees with commenters that NERC's proposed footnote `b' will have no adverse impact on reliable planning of the bulk-power system because planning to shed Firm Demand is intended to ensure that single contingency events do not result in adverse impacts and intended to preserve bulk-power system reliability.
17. Further, NERC has not provided technically sound means of determining situations in which planning to interrupt Firm Demand would be allowable. While NERC expects that such determinations will be made in a stakeholder process, this provides no assurance that such a process will use technically sound means of approving or denying exceptions. The Commission concludes that the multiple stakeholder processes across the country engaging in such determinations could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary exceptions including, potentially, allowing entities to plan to interrupt any amount of Firm Demand in any location and at any voltage level.
18. While the Commission recognizes that some variation among regions or entities is reasonable given varying grid topography and other considerations, there are no technical or other criteria to determine whether varied results are arbitrary or based on meaningful distinctions. The Commission, thus, concludes that NERC's proposal lacks safeguards to ensure against inconsistent results and arbitrary determinations to allow for the planned interruption of Firm Demand.
19. A remand gives NERC and industry flexibility to develop an approach that would address the issues identified by the Commission with the proposed footnote `b' stakeholder process including, as discussed below, definition of the process and criteria or guidelines for the process.
20. The Commission believes that, on remand, both NERC and the Commission will benefit from a more complete record regarding the electric industry's reliance on planned Firm Demand interruptions. In response to the Commission's request to explain and quantify the extent to which Firm Demand is planned to be interrupted pursuant to currently-effective footnote `b,' NERC explained:
NERC and the Regional Entities have not collected statistics or preformed a survey concerning the prospective implementation of Footnote b under TPL-002-0a. During the drafting team's deliberations concerning TPL-001-2 and TPL-002-0a Footnote b, including the NERC Technical Conference on Footnote b, the informal assessments demonstrated that the use of Footnote b would not be widespread.
Likewise, several commenters state that the interruption of Firm Demand is rarely needed, but provide no support for this conclusion.
21. We urge NERC to develop in a timely manner an appropriate modification that is responsive to the Commission's directives in Order No. 693 and our concerns set forth in this Final Rule. In that regard, we require NERC to deploy its Expedited Reliability Standards Development Process to quickly respond to the remand. As the Commission noted in previous orders, the use of planned or controlled load interruption is a fundamental reliability issue and, certainty regarding the loss of non-consequential load for a single contingency event is warranted.
22. Below we discuss three concerns: (a) Jurisdictional issues, (b) lack of technical criteria, and (c) the stakeholder process. The Commission also provides guidance on other acceptable approaches.
23. A number of commenters express concern that the Commission is reaching beyond its FPA section 215 jurisdiction.
24. The Commission disagrees that it is infringing on State Commissions or overstepping jurisdictional bounds. In this Final Rule, the Commission remands NERC's proposed footnote `b' as an inadequate mechanism to address planned curtailment of firm demand and not responsive to the Commission's directives in Order No. 693 regarding this matter. The Commission is not directing that NERC develop a specific solution or approach on remand. Thus, our remand of the NERC proposed modification to TPL-002-0b, Table 1, footnote `b' is fully within the Commission's authority pursuant to section 215(d)(4) to remand to the ERO for further consideration a modification to a proposed reliability standard that the Commission disapproves in whole or in part. Moreover,FPA section 215 gives the Commission jurisdiction over mandatory Reliability Standards to ensure reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
25. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to remand NERC's proposal to modify Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b, Table 1, footnote `b.' The Commission stated that it believed that NERC's proposal does not meet the directives in Order No. 693 and the June 2010 Order and does not clarify or define the circumstances in which an entity can plan to interrupt Firm Demand for a single contingency.
26. Further, in the NOPR the Commission stated that since the proposed footnote `b' contains no constraints, it could allow an entity to plan to interrupt any amount of planned Firm Demand, in any location or at any voltage level as needed for any single contingency, provided that it is documented and subjected to a stakeholder process. The Commission found this result remains contrary to the underlying Reliability Standard and prior Commission orders.
27. Some commenters agree with the Commission that there is lack of technical criteria to determine planned interruption of Firm Demand. For example, California SWP states that Reliability Standards “should ensure transparent criteria based on technical merits and not software limitations derived from a desire to mask [locational marginal pricing] price signals with socialized pricing or on
28. Other commenters disagree with the Commission's concern that there is a lack of criteria to determine planned interruption of Firm Demand. NERC states that it does not believe that an exceptions process that provides defined criteria, with some allowances, could be crafted that would respect pre-existing decision making processes that occur at state and local jurisdictions. NERC argues that the decision to interrupt local load is essentially an economic decision—a quality of service issue, not a reliability issue.
29. MISO disagrees that additional language would reduce the potential for inconsistent results and points out that registered entities already have many established requirements that govern the transmission planning processes.
30. We believe that openness and transparency do not alone ensure that bulk electric system performance criteria will be met to ensure system reliability. The Commission is not persuaded that developing technical criteria is unachievable. As the Commission observed in the NOPR, NERC has thresholds in other reliability contexts, such as vegetation management pursuant to Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 which applies to all transmission lines operated at 200 kV and above. Likewise, NERC's Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria includes numerous thresholds for determining eligibility for registration.
31. The Commission does not agree with EEI's recommendation to implement a stakeholder process that is absent technical criteria but then amend it later. While the Commission has, in other circumstances, approved a Reliability Standard and, as a separate action, directed NERC to develop a modification pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, in such proceedings the Commission concluded that the proposed Reliability Standard was just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. In the immediate proceeding, however, we cannot make such a finding in light of the flawed stakeholder process provision.
32. In response to MISO's argument that such criteria should be determined by the stakeholders in the regions though their established stakeholder processes, the Commission would be amenable to such an approach if, for example, NERC and/or the Regional Entities developed an exception process that provides flexibility in decisions based on disparate topology or on other matters since they could utilize their technical expertise to determine the reliability impact from one region to another. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that a more defined process is needed with NERC-defined technical criteria to determine planned interruption of Firm Demand. However, we conclude that the approach of allowing a decentralized process without any overarching parameters is unacceptable.
33. With regard to NERC's comment that the decision to interrupt local load is essentially an economic decision that is a quality of service issue, not a reliability issue, the Commission notes that in Order No. 693, we dismissed the argument that it may be preferable to plan the bulk electric system in such a manner that contemplates the interruption of some firm load customers in the event of a N-1 contingency, and that such interruption is based largely on the matter of economics, not reliability.
34. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern that NERC's proposed footnote `b' stakeholder process is insufficient to meet Order No. 693 and the June 2010 Order clarification that a regional difference, or a case-specific exception process that can be technically justified, to plan for the loss of firm services at the fringes of the systems is acceptable in limited circumstances.
35. The Commission further stated that the lack of a defined stakeholder process could allow a transmission planner to develop a process that provides insufficient opportunity for stakeholder participation and transparency yet still comply with the standard. The Commission expressed its belief that nothing in the proposed footnote `b' restricts the stakeholder process, other than that it must be an open and transparent stakeholder process that includes addressing stakeholder comments. The Commission requested comment on whether a stakeholder process is the appropriate vehicle to approve or deny exceptions to allow entities to plan to interrupt Firm Demand for a single contingency and if so, whether the proposed footnote `b' would require any stakeholder due process.
36. Several commenters believe that NERC's proposed stakeholder process is the appropriate venue to approve or deny exceptions to interrupt planned Firm Demand. NERC and other commenters contend that building on existing stakeholder processes is appropriate, rather than creating new, duplicative processes. While EEI, APPA, and TAPS concur with or acknowledge the Commission's concerns about the inadequacy of the proposed stakeholder process, they nonetheless urge the Commission to approve NERC's proposal stating that it reflects the considered expertise that instances of planned load shed are uncommon and not amenable to a one-size-fits-all approach.
37. Duke Energy believes that the current Order No. 890-type process involving the local transmission planning collaborative is the appropriate stakeholder process. Duke Energy suggests that footnote `b' should be revised to include a local regulatory authority process as the appropriate stakeholder process to allow entities to plan to interrupt Firm Demand for a single contingency. According to Duke Energy, in such a process a transmission planner would submit its plan to interrupt Firm Demand for a single contingency to its local regulatory authority that has jurisdiction over quality of service to local load prior to any actual interruption of Firm Demand.
38. BPA states that the stakeholder process will keep the decision local, where the parties involved understand the different factors that must be considered in deciding the proper path forward.
39. FRCC disagrees with the Commission that enforceability is limited since the process requires development of a record documenting the decisions and stakeholder comments and planning authority responses. According to FRCC, the result will provide NERC and the Commission substantive and procedural grounds to assess whether sufficient consideration was given to maintaining reliability.
40. Some commenters believe that NERC's proposed stakeholder process is not the appropriate vehicle to approve or deny exceptions to interrupt planned Firm Demand. ITC argues that the stakeholder process is inadequately undefined to ensure that planned Firm Demand interruptions are kept to a minimum. Manitoba Hydro indicates that by acknowledging an exception for interruptible Firm Demand, NERC appears to recognize that the right to interrupt is not solely a reliability issue, but also a commercial or legal issue based on contractual rights.
41. While TAPS encourages the Commission to accept NERC's proposed footnote `b,' it shares the NOPR's concerns about the adequacy of the open and transparent stakeholder process and has argued for a decision-making role for transmission-dependent utilities in the Order No. 890 and Order No. 1000 planning processes to ensure that stakeholder processes do not result in a presentation of a decision followed by the transmission provider simply “rubber-stamping” the decision.
42. The Commission is not persuaded that the stakeholder process is adequately defined. The Commission is concerned that the stakeholder process could undermine the system performance criteria of TPL-002-0b Reliability Standard. As the Commission stated in Order No. 693, one of the key reliability objectives of the TPL Reliability Standard is that the system can be operated following the loss of one element and supply projected firm customer demands and projected firm transmission services at all demand levels over the range of forecast system demands.
43. The Commission agrees with TAPS to the extent it observes that the proposal could allow a transmission planner to utilize a new or existing stakeholder process that provides insufficient opportunity for a stakeholder to provide meaningful input. We conclude that the stakeholder process with no criteria to objectively assess whether varied results are arbitrary or based on meaningful differences is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, and not in the public interest. Nothing in proposed footnote `b' defines the stakeholder process, other than it must be an open and transparent stakeholder process that includes addressing stakeholder comments.
44. The Commission is not persuaded by FRCC's comment that enforceability is not limited by proposed footnote ‘b’ and that development of a record will provide NERC “substantive and procedural” grounds to assess the outcome of the process. Neither FRCC nor any other commenter identifies the minimum procedural safeguards to assure an adequate level of stakeholder participation and consideration of stakeholder comment in the decision-making process. Moreover, even NERC, which states that it can conduct after-the-fact audits, indicates that such audits would not explore substantive adequacy or the reliability basis for a decision to plan to shed Firm Demand.
45. The Commission proposed three options in the NOPR for further guidance on acceptable approaches to footnote `b.' In addition, the Commission requested comment on other potential options to solve the concerns outlined in the NOPR.
46. In the NOPR, the Commission acknowledged that NERC considered a variety of limits but observed that NERC's establishment of some form of
47. Commenters were unanimous that the examples of existing protocols would not be beneficial to devise criteria. NERC and others state that any bright-line megawatt limit would be inappropriate because the bright-line would be arbitrary.
48. BPA, ITC, and Duke Energy comment that setting a quantitative limit would push transmission planners to plan to meet such a limit for a single contingency in all cases. Currently, transmission planners start from the premise that no load should be interrupted in the event of a single contingency. ITC believes that including such an acceptable lost load criterion as an option could lead to that option being chosen as the “default solution,” i.e., allowing for a certain amount of acceptable interruption of Firm Demand without a stakeholder exception review process.
49. The Commission is persuaded by the commenters that Form OE-417 or the Registry Criteria are not, by themselves, beneficial to use to devise criteria. The Commission also agrees that a bright-line criteria by itself does not present a viable option and would have the potential to constitute an acceptable
50. The Commission also sought comment on whether a blend of quantitative and qualitative thresholds to be used to interrupt planned Firm Demand would be an appropriate option for providing criteria that would be generally applicable, but also for allowing for certain cases that may exceed the criteria. For example, a Reliability Standard could require a process with a quantitative limitation on how much Firm Demand could be planned for interruption and the standard could provide an exception process where a registered entity would submit documents and explanation to the ERO or a Regional Entity for approval based upon certain considerations.
51. California SWP indicates that standards must constrain the use of firm load shedding as a reliability solution in transmission planning and at the same time, require a transparent and clearly defined stakeholder process to support any such planned use of load shedding for single contingency events.
52. Other commenters disagree that a blend is a good option. NARUC indicates that rather than inventing another stakeholder process by requiring NERC to set specific quantitative or qualitative requirements for distribution load shedding, NERC should look to State commissions and existing State curtailment plans to guide load shedding in contingency planning.
53. EEI believes that adopting a process that would provide greater clarity, reporting, and refinement would provide the specific information on the extent that the footnote `b' issue presents itself. EEI also agrees with NERC that efforts to create a one-size-fits-all approach have less value than a process that ensures openness and transparency.
54. The Commission believes that setting a quantitative and qualitative threshold in developing a limited exception for planned interruption of Firm Demand may be a workable solution. First, qualitative thresholds could be used to overcome the concern discussed immediately above regarding the quantitative threshold becoming an acceptable
55. We believe it is appropriate for the Regional Entities, with NERC as the final authority, to make determinations under a “blended” exception process. First, NERC and the Regional Entities provide both objectivity in the decision-making process as well as the necessary reliability-focused expertise. Second, this should not overly burden NERC or Regional Entity resources as utilization of the planned load shed exception is—and would be—rarely utilized.
56. The Commission does not agree with BPA's suggestion of using quantitative thresholds based on a fraction of aggregated normal peak load. BPA's suggestion attempts to address the concerns of commenters that a bright-line threshold must be established that would be a one-size-fits-all criteria. For example, instead of a megawatt bright-line threshold for all entities, the ERO could establish a threshold based on a percentage of aggregated normal peak load. The Commission believes that it would be difficult to demonstrate that adoption of BPA's suggestion would be just and reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential and in the public interest. If criteria were established that permitted a percentage of aggregated normal peak load as an acceptable threshold for planned interruption of Firm Demand, even a small percentage could equate to entire towns, cities or regions of load.
57. The Commission offers guidance to NERC to consider the option of a blend of quantitative and qualitative thresholds. An example of a qualitative threshold could include identifying geographical or topological “fringes of the system.” While interruption at the fringes of the system may be expected by some consumers, not all customers necessarily have that same expectation. For example, we don't expect that many water treatment facilities or telecom switching stations normally plan to be interrupted for single contingency events.
58. In the NOPR the Commission also requested comment on whether a feasible option would be to revise footnote `b' to allow for the planned interruption of Firm Demand in circumstances where the “transmission planner can show that it has customer or community consent and there is no adverse impact to the Bulk-Power System.”
59. Several commenters agreed with the Commission that the customer or community consent should be required. ITC believes the customers or entities should be involved in a stakeholder process such as a representative group for the affected load or customers (community representatives or a separate load serving entity where the transmission provider is not an integrated utility), the public service/utility regulatory commission for the affected load, the RTO or ISO for the affected area, and any other affected entity. California SWP also supports notice to and consent of loads (or their wholesale representatives) that are planned to be interrupted for the loss of a single element.
60. Other commenters disagree that customer or community consent should be required. NERC states that it has no relationship with retail customers and, therefore, has no mechanism to bring retail customers into the conversation. NERC adds that both wholesale and retail customers are already involved in state processes which provide a forum for them to be heard.
61. Hydro One and the IESO submit that customer interests are managed by the relevant regulatory authority and consent is through regulatory approval. In all cases, steps are taken in planning, design, and operations of the system to
62. FRCC states that the evaluation of the possible use of interruptible or conditional firm service instead of planned interruptions of Firm Demand is not warranted. According to FRCC, the adoption of a Firm Demand interruption alternative would inherently entail customer benefits from foregone project costs and the non-incurrence of environmental and other impacts. The customers would also generally enjoy a higher quality of service than traditional interruptible or conditional firm. Consequently, FRCC believes that applying any such rate in place of Demand interruption would present imponderable issues of quantification and application.
63. BPA does not believe that this proceeding is appropriate to decide issues related to service choice. BPA argues that the Commission has determined that the rate for conditional firm service be the same as the firm rate. BPA does not anticipate that the interruption of Firm Demand would occur on a frequent basis, if at all. Thus, BPA does not believe that a customer should pay a different transmission rate under these circumstances. APPA states that footnote `b' arms wholesale transmission customers and communities served at retail with information and studies prepared by the transmission planner, documenting the specific circumstances (i.e., specific Bulk Electric System Contingency events) under which interruption of Firm Demand may be needed to address bulk electric system performance requirements.
64. We understand NERC's position that as the entity that addresses Bulk-Power System reliability, it does not have a mechanism to coordinate with customers. Likewise, how to define customers and community decisions and engage them in the NERC process could be challenging.
65. At the same time, California SWP provides a compelling example of how a customer can be adversely affected by planned load shedding for Firm Demand if it was unaware its load would be interrupted until its load was actually shed. In contrast to California SWP's experience, a customer should have notice and understanding that the transmission planner plans to curtail certain Firm Demand in the event of a single contingency indentified in the system modeling under NERC's Transmission Planning requirements. NERC should consider these matters on remand.
66. In sum, the Commission remands the proposed footnote `b' and directs NERC to revise its proposal to address the Commission's concerns described above, subject to consideration of the additional guidance provided in this Final Rule.
67. As stated in the NOPR, NERC will need to support the revision to footnote `b.' If there is a threshold component to the revised footnote, NERC would need to support the threshold and show that instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures of the system will not occur as a result of planning to shed Firm Demand up to the threshold. In addition, if there is an individual exception option, the applicable entities should be required to find that there is no adverse impact to the Bulk-Power System from the exception and that it is considered in wide-area coordination and operations. Further, the Commission believes that any exception should be subject to further review by the Regional Entity or NERC.
68. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.
69. As stated above, the subject of this Final Rule is NERC's proposed modification to Table 1, footnote `b' applicable in four TPL Reliability Standards. This Final Rule remands the footnote `b' modification to NERC. By remanding footnote `b' the applicable Reliability Standards and any information collection requirements are unchanged. Therefore, the Commission will submit this Final Rule to OMB for informational purposes only.
70. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
71. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
72. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
73. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
74. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
75. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
76. These regulations are effective July 6, 2012. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Norris is dissenting in part and concurring in part with a separate statement attached.
NORRIS, Commissioner,
The continued implementation and evolution of the mandatory reliability standards program enacted by Congress in 2005 has been at the forefront of our agenda since I arrived at the Commission in 2010. As we have grappled with the difficult issues raised by proposed new or revised standards, and as I have discussed these issues with regulated industry, state regulators, and the public, I have consistently heard a common theme: mandatory reliability standards come with costs that consumers ultimately must bear.
As I have thought about this issue, it has become clear to me that in any discussion of a new or revised mandatory reliability standard, there is always a tradeoff between the level of reliability to be achieved by that standard and the costs that the standard will impose. However, that tradeoff is rarely discussed explicitly in the standards development process or during the Commission's review of standards. But, we know that it is an implicit consideration of entities participating in the standards development process. I believe it is more appropriate to make those considerations, where they are relevant, explicit. Therefore, I have advocated for an open dialogue between NERC, the industry, and the Commission to consider the connection between the mandatory standards we approve to maintain and improve the reliability of the Bulk Power System and the costs required to meet those standards.
However, I have perceived some hesitancy in openly addressing costs when considering reliability matters. This is not surprising, as there are no easy answers to these tough questions, and regulators and industry charged with assuring reliability will always be hesitant to be perceived as sacrificing reliability in an effort to save on costs. While I am not advocating for a cost-benefit threshold for approving reliability standards, I do not believe that we can ignore the costs of proposed mandatory reliability standards as we consider whether they are “just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest”.
I am compelled to raise these issues in this proceeding because I believe that the Transmission Planning (TPL) Reliability Standard footnote `b' addressed in today's order presents a stark example of the tradeoffs that sometimes must be made between increasing levels of reliability and the costs that come with achieving them. As such, I hope my comments today will help generate a dialogue on how economics and reliability fit together when considering mandatory reliability standards.
In today's order, I agree with the majority's decision to remand proposed TPL footnote `b' because it is vague, potentially unenforceable, and lacks adequate safeguards to determine when planning to shed firm load would be permitted. However, I am concerned that, in allowing for an exception to the TPL standards requirement that firm load must be maintained under N-1 scenarios, the order does not sufficiently recognize that this is both an economic and reliability issue, and must allow for a balancing of the economic and reliability considerations involved.
There may be cases where planning to avoid shedding firm load in all N-1 scenarios will impose significant costs on customers, with perhaps little added reliability benefit for those customers. In such instances, I believe that wholesale transmission customers and local communities with retail load service should be empowered to consider the economic tradeoffs between incurring costs to avoid shedding firm load versus planning to shed firm load, as long as that decision does not adversely impact the reliability of the Bulk Power System. Simply put, if a customer seeks to avoid significant costs, and can do so without impacting its neighbors, the customer should be making that decision. Today's order fails to adequately acknowledge the economic consequences of having to invest in significant facility upgrades to avoid shedding firm load under certain N-1 scenarios that may be rare or unlikely and that would have only local impacts.
Accordingly, in my view, the Commission should have directed NERC to revise footnote `b' to address two broad concerns. First, wholesale transmission customers and retail load should have the ability to choose whether to shed firm load during an N-1 contingency where that decision will not adversely impact the Bulk Power System. Second, the decision to shed firm load must be validated to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the Bulk Power System. Absent this reliability check, the planning of firm load shedding should not be permitted, because reliability of the Bulk Power System is paramount. While NERC, the Regional Entity, and/or the local planning authority must be involved in the reliability check, these entities would not be expected to be involved in the economic decision.
Additionally, I agree with various comments filed in response to the NOPR that firm load shedding is and should be used rarely or infrequently. I do not expect that any new process that NERC may propose to determine whether firm load shedding is permitted would result in a rush by entities seeking to plan to shed firm load. In other words, I do not expect this exception to “swallow the rule” under the TPL standards that firm load may not be planned to be shed for N-1 contingencies.
Finally, the concerns I note above regarding the failure to consider both the economic and reliability aspects of a decision to plan to shed firm load extend to the specific guidance provided in the order. The guidance in the order with respect to what
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor name from Bioniche Teoranta to Mylan Institutional, LLC; a change of sponsor for fomepizole injectable solution from Synerx Pharma, LLC, to Mylan Institutional, LLC; and a change of sponsor address for Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC.
This rule is effective May 7, 2012.
Steven D. Vaughn, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8300, email:
Bioniche Teoranta, Inverin, County Galway, Ireland, has informed FDA that it has changed its name and address to Mylan Institutional, LLC, 4901 Hiawatha Dr., Rockford, IL 61103. Synerx Pharma, LLC, 100 N. State St., Newton, PA 18940, has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) 200-472 for Fomepizole for Injection to Mylan Institutional, LLC. Modern Veterinary Therapeutics, LLC, 1550 Madruga Ave., suite 329, Coral Gables, FL 33146, has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 18001 Old Cutler Rd., suite 317, Miami, FL 33157. Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in parts 510 and 522 (21 CFR parts 510 and 522) to reflect these changes.
Following this change of sponsorship, Synerx Pharma, LLC, is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, § 510.600 (21 CFR 510.600) is being amended to remove the entries for this firm.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) * * *
21 U.S.C. 360b.
(b)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final regulations that explain how to allocate prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums to determine the amount of the prepaid premium that is treated as qualified residence interest each taxable year. The final regulations reflect changes to the law made by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The regulations affect taxpayers who pay prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums.
Charles Kim, (202) 622-5020 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1. On May 7, 2009, the Treasury Department and IRS published temporary regulations (TD 9449) under section 163 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in the
TD 9449 also contained temporary regulations under section 6050H(h) that require persons who receive premiums, including prepaid premiums, for mortgage insurance to make a return setting forth the amount of premiums received. A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107271-08) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in the
Section 419 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432 (120 Stat. 2967) (2006), added sections 163(h)(3)(E), (h)(4)(E), and (h)(4)(F) to the Code. Section 3 of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, Public Law 110-142 (121 Stat. 1803) (2007), amended section 163(h)(3)(E)(iv). Section 759(a) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-312 (124 Stat. 3296) (2010), further amended section 163(h)(3)(E)(iv). In general, these new provisions treat certain qualified mortgage insurance premiums as qualified residence interest. This treatment only applies to certain qualified mortgage insurance premiums paid or accrued on or after January 1, 2007, and on or before December 31, 2011, on mortgage insurance contracts issued on or after January 1, 2007.
Section 163(h)(3)(E)(i) provides that premiums paid or accrued for qualified mortgage insurance in connection with acquisition indebtedness for a qualified residence are treated as qualified residence interest for purposes of section 163. Section 163(h)(4)(E) defines
Section 163(h)(4)(F) states that any amount paid by the taxpayer for qualified mortgage insurance that is properly allocable to any mortgage the payment of which extends to periods that are after the close of the taxable year in which the amount is paid shall be chargeable to capital account and shall be treated as paid in the periods to which the amount is allocated. No deduction shall be allowed for the unamortized balance of the account if the mortgage is satisfied before the end of its term. Section 163(h)(4)(F) provides that the allocation rules under section 163(h)(4)(F) do not apply to amounts paid for qualified mortgage insurance provided by the VA or Rural Housing. Additionally, section 163(h)(3)(E)(iv)(II) disallows a deduction for amounts allocable to any period after December 31, 2011.
These final regulations provide rules regarding the allocation of prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums to determine the amount of the prepaid premium that is treated as qualified residence interest each taxable year under section 163(h)(4)(F).
These final regulations apply to prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums paid or accrued on or after January 1, 2011. The treatment of mortgage insurance premiums as interest described in these final regulations is limited to prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums that are paid or accrued on or after January 1, 2011, and during periods to which section 163(h)(3)(E) is applicable. The temporary regulations are applicable to prepaid qualified mortgage insurance premiums paid or accrued on or after January 1, 2008, and on or before December 31, 2010.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection
The principal author of these regulations is Charles Kim, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(i) The stated term of the mortgage; or
(ii) A period of 84 months, beginning with the month in which the insurance was obtained.
(2)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around vessels involved in a Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise in Hood Canal, WA that will take place between May 08, 2012 and May 10, 2012. A safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public during the exercise and will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his Designated Representative.
This rule is effective from 4:00 a.m. May 08, 2012 until 11:59 p.m. on May, 10, 2012.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0283 and are available online by going to
If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger; Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-6045, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable, since the event requiring the establishment of this safety zone would be over before a comment period would end. The vessels involved in the Coast Guard Ready for
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard will be conducting a Ready for Operations (RFO) exercise in the northern part of Hood Canal, WA. During the exercise, tactical vessels will be maneuvering through the Hood Canal from the entrance of Dabob Bay to Foulweather Bluff. This exercise will include fast moving surface vessels, smoke machines, and pyrotechnics. Blank ammunition, flares and LA51 warning munitions will be used during the exercise. This safety zone is being created to ensure the safety of the maritime public and vessels participating in the exercise by preventing collisions between exercising vessels and the maritime public, and by keeping the maritime public a safe distance away from potentially startling or disorienting smoke, bright flashes, and loud noises.
The temporary safety zone established by this rule will prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining within 500 yards of any vessel involved in the Coast Guard Ready for Operations exercise. Members of the maritime public will be able to identify participating vessels as those flying the Coast Guard Ensign. The COTP may also be assisted in the enforcement of the zones by other federal, state, or local agencies.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The Coast Guard bases this finding on the fact that the safety zones will be in place for a limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit around the safety zones. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zones from the COTP, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it is in effect. The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone will be in place for a limited period of time and maritime traffic will still be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit though the zones from the COTP, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165, as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules so that EAS Participants may, but are not required to, employ the text-to-speech (TTS) functions described in the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide.
Effective May 7, 2012.
Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by email at
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. On January 10, 2012, the Commission released its
2. In the
3. Notwithstanding that the Commission mandated compliance with most of the ECIG Implementation Guide, it declined at that time to impose such a mandatory approach with respect to the ECIG Implementation Guide's provisions regarding TTS. The Commission noted, for example, that the accuracy and reliability of TTS had not been established in the record. The Commission also recognized that a regime that addressed lack of audio by focusing on the EAS Participant end—where the EAS Participants would effectuate the TTS conversion by using any of the available TTS software packages that may be configured into their EAS equipment—might be less desirable than an approach that required the message originator to make the conversion with TTS software on the originating end. Because of the need for multiple conversions using a variety of software, the former approach would be more prone to the generation of differing, and thus confusing, audio messages to be broadcast for the same EAS message. The latter approach would tend to avoid this risk by applying the conversion before the alert is widely distributed throughout the community of EAS Participants. The Commission further observed that it may consider the TTS issue in an upcoming proceeding. Accordingly, the Commission stated that it “continue[s] to believe that discussion of text-to-speech and speech-to-text software is best reserved for a separate proceeding, and [that] we therefore defer these issues at this time.”
In order to avoid imposing the Guide's mandatory approach toward TTS conversions—which would have required EAS Participants to effectuate such conversions using EAS Participant-provided technologies if their EAS devices could support them—the Commission revised § 11.56 of its rules to preclude application of the Guide's mandatory requirement outright.
4. The Commission also stated in the
5. On March 12, 2012, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) made a filing, titled a “Petition for Reconsideration” (FEMA Request), requesting reversal of the Commission's decision in the
6. Upon review of the
7. Accordingly, pursuant to § 1.108 of the its rules, on it own motion the Commission reconsiders and revises § 11.56(a)(2) of its rules to replace the parenthetical phrase “except that any and all specifications set forth therein related to using text-to-speech technology and gubernatorial `must carry' shall not be followed” with the phrase “except that any and all specifications set forth therein related to gubernatorial `must carry' shall not be followed, and that EAS Participants may adhere to the specifications related to text-to-speech on a voluntary basis.” The Commission also revises footnote 118 of the
8. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
9. This document contains no modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
10. The Commission will send a copy of this
11. The Commission makes this rule revision effective immediately upon publication in the
12. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” In this
13. Accordingly,
14.
15.
16.
Radio, Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
(a) * * *
(2) Converting EAS alert messages that have been formatted pursuant to the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 (July 1, 2010), and Common Alerting Protocol, v. 1.2 USA Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Profile Version 1.0 (Oct. 13, 2009), into EAS alert messages that comply with the EAS Protocol, such that the Preamble and EAS Header Codes, audio Attention Signal, audio message, and Preamble and EAS End of Message (EOM) Codes of such messages are rendered equivalent to the EAS Protocol (set forth in § 11.31), in accordance with the technical specifications governing such conversion process set forth in the EAS-CAP Industry Group's (ECIG) Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0 (May 17, 2010) (except that any and all specifications set forth therein related to gubernatorial “must carry” shall not be followed, and that EAS Participants may adhere to the specifications related to text-to-speech on a voluntary basis). * * *
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; correcting amendments.
On April 24, 2012, FRA published a final rule, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, which increased the aggravated maximum civil monetary penalty that the agency will apply when assessing a civil penalty for a violation of a railroad safety statute, regulation, or order under its authority.
The corrections to the final rule are effective on June 25, 2012.
Veronica Chittim, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-0273),
Three errors were included in the final rule published on April 24, 2012.
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Hazardous materials transportation, Noise control, Penalties, Railroad employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sanitation.
Penalties, Railroad safety.
In accordance with the foregoing, parts 228 and 231, of subtitle B, chapter II of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 21101-21109; Sec. 108, Div. A, Pub. L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4860-4866; 49 U.S.C. 21301, 21303, 21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; 49 U.S.C. 103; and 49 CFR 1.49.
49 U.S.C. 20102-20103, 20107, 20131, 20301-20303, 21301-21302, 21304; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; enforcement of collection-of-information requirements.
NMFS announces approval by the Office of Management and Budget of collection-of-information requirements for a days-at-sea credit provision for the Northeast multispecies, monkfish, and Atlantic sea scallop fisheries. This final rule sets the enforcement date for the collection-of information requirements.
The collection-of-information requirements in 50 CFR 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92 are enforced as of May 7, 2012.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the Northeast Regional Office, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, by email to
Jason Berthiaume, Fisheries Management Specialist, 978-281-9177.
A final rule to implement measures in Amendment 17 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan was published in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not yet approved the collection-of-information requirements in §§ 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92 by the date the final rule was submitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication, and thus those provisions were not enforced when that final rule published in the
NMFS previously solicited public comments on the measures described in the Amendment 17 proposed rule, including this collection of information, through the rulemaking process. NMFS received no comments on the collection of information requirements. Thus, this action merely implements portions of the final rule implementing Amendment 17 that were previously proposed and subjected to public comment, but that under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) required OMB approval in order to become effective. OMB has now approved the collection of information provisions. Because the public has already had an opportunity to comment
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed enforcement date required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and make this rule enforceable upon publication. This provision is not a restriction, but rather provides a mechanism for small entities to regain lost DAS due to circumstances that were out of their control. Although a DAS credit provision can be requested using existing information collection provisions, the revised collection of information provisions at §§ 648.53, 648.82, and 648.92 are more streamlined and will reduce the administrative burden on regulated entities. A delay in enforcement of 30 days would prevent vessels from utilizing the streamlined form and process NMFS has developed to request a DAS credit, and thus prolong the burdens on vessels.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information requirement subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This final rule contains revisions to collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA under OMB Control Numbers 0648-0202 and 0648-0212 and was approved by OMB on March 26, 2012.
The collection of information requirements for the DAS credit provision require vessel owners to provide NMFS with an initial notification as well as the submission of a DAS credit request form. The public burden for requesting a DAS credit is estimated to average 15 min per application, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.
Based upon permit type, a maximum of 1,908 permits holders could possibly apply for a DAS credit. With an average response time of 15 min, the total burden for applying for a DAS credit is 478 hr. This analysis was conducted assuming each permitted vessel requests one DAS credit per fishing year. Of the 1,908 permit holders, 845 are vessel monitoring system vessels and the remaining 1,063 are assumed to be either interactive voice response vessels or inactive vessels. Although the notification method depends upon the vessels reporting requirements, the associated time burdens will be similar.
Send comments on these burden estimates or any other aspects of these collections-of-information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, by mail to the Northeast Regional Office (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to remove sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid from the list of substances that the regulations prohibit for use in meat or poultry products. Under this proposal, new uses of these substances in meat or poultry products would continue to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for safety and by FSIS for suitability. FSIS would add approved uses of these substances to the list of approved substances contained in the Agency's directive system.
Comments must be received by July 6, 2012.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit relevant comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by either of the following methods:
•
•
Charles Williams, Acting Director, Policy Issuances Division, Office of Policy and Program Development, FSIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700, (202) 690-2282.
Under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), (21 U.S.C. 301
The regulations that prescribe requirements for the use of food ingredients and sources of radiation in meat and poultry products prohibit for use in such products substances that conceal damage or inferiority or that make the product appear better or of greater value (9 CFR 424.23(a)). Under the regulations, certain antimicrobial substances are prohibited for use in meat or poultry products because these substances have the potential to conceal damage or inferiority when used at certain levels (9 CFR 424.23(a)(3)). Among these substances are potassium sorbate, propylparaben (propyl p-hydroxybenzoate), calcium propionate, sodium propionate, benzoic acid, and sodium benzoate. The regulations provide that these substances “* * * may be used in or on any product, only as provided in 9 CFR Chapter III” (9 CFR 424.23(a)(3)). Thus, while FSIS lists approved uses of other substances in its directive system, the Agency must codify any approved use of the substances listed in 9 CFR 424.23(a)(3) in the meat or poultry products inspection regulations.
The meat and poultry products inspection regulations provide for the FSIS Administrator to “* * * waive for limited periods any provisions of the regulations * * * to permit * * * experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, and/or processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite improvements” (9 CFR 303.1(h) and 381.3(b)). Under the regulations, FSIS may only grant waivers from the provisions in the regulations that are not in conflict with the purposes or provisions of the FMIA or PPIA (9 CFR 303.1(h) and 381.3(b)).
FSIS decides whether to grant requests for waivers after considering proposals and documentation submitted by establishments to demonstrate that the use of a new technology is scientifically sound; that it will facilitate definite improvements; and that issuing the waiver will not conflict with the provisions of the FMIA or PPIA, i.e., the conditions of use will not
On January 19, 2007, Kraft Foods Global, Inc. petitioned FSIS to amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to permit the use of sodium benzoate and sodium propionate as acceptable antimicrobial agents that may be used in combination with other approved ingredients to inhibit the growth of
On July 26, 2010, Kemin Food Technologies petitioned FSIS to amend the regulations to permit the use of liquid sodium propionate and liquid sodium benzoate as acceptable antimicrobial agents in meat and poultry products. Kemin requested that FSIS approve the use of liquid sodium propionate to inhibit microbial growth in various meat and poultry products in amounts of up to 0.5 percent by weight of total product formulation. Kemin also requested that FSIS approve the use of liquid sodium propionate and sodium benzoate to prohibit microbial growth in various meat and poultry products in amounts of up to 0.4 percent by weight of total formulation, whereas liquid sodium benzoate will not exceed 0.1 percent of product formulation.
After receiving each petition, FSIS conducted an initial evaluation of the requested action to confirm that FDA had no objections to the safety of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, or benzoic acid at the proposed levels of use. FSIS also considered each petition's supporting data on the suitability of these substances for use in meat and poultry products. From its initial evaluation of each petition, FSIS, in consultation with FDA, concluded that the petitioners had established the safety of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid at the proposed levels of use but that the Agency needed additional data to make a final suitability determination.
Therefore, in July 2007, FSIS issued a waiver to Kraft to conduct trials in 59 of its establishments on the use of sodium benzoate and sodium propionate, in combination with other ingredients, to control the growth of
As a condition of the waivers, both Kraft and Kemin were to track issues regarding consumer acceptance of products containing the substances at issue during the trial period and to identify any situations that resulted in consumer concerns about the products. The waivers also provided that both companies were to collect data to show that normal spoilage indicators are not masked in products treated with the substances, that nutrients are not adversely affected, and that product appearance (e.g., color) did not change when compared with untreated products. Another condition of the waivers was that the meat and poultry products formulated with the subject ingredients have an approved label that includes an accurate declaration of the ingredients in the appropriate order of predominance.
While operating under the waivers, both companies gathered sufficient data to support the use of sodium propionate, sodium benzoate, and benzoic acid as antimicrobial agents in RTE meat and poultry products. Accordingly, FSIS is initiating this rulemaking proposing to remove these substances from the list of substances prohibited for use in meat or poultry products. Should FSIS finalize this proposed rule, the Agency will list approved uses of these substances in FSIS Directive 7120.1. FSIS has extended the companies' regulatory waivers for the use of these substances pending the conclusion of this rulemaking.
To demonstrate that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid are suitable for their intended use as antimicrobial agents in meat and poultry products, Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant-trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use.
Kraft submitted research findings to demonstrate that its proposed use of sodium benzoate and sodium propionate is effective in controlling the growth of
(1) A combination of 0.1 percent sodium benzoate and 0.1 percent sodium diacetate in some lower moisture products such as hot dogs;
(2) A combination of 0.1 percent sodium benzoate, 0.15 percent sodium diacetate, and 0.2 percent sodium propionate in high moisture products such as ham; and
(3) A combination of 0.1 percent sodium benzoate, 0.15 percent sodium diacetate, 0.2 percent sodium propionate, and 0.56 percent Lem-O-Fos® in turkey.
In addition, Kraft submitted three studies to address concerns about the potential use of the substances to conceal damage or mask inferiority. First, Kraft assessed whether the proposed uses of sodium benzoate and sodium propionate would affect normal indicators of spoilage. The results of two shelf life studies on the spoilage issue showed that there was very little
In its petition, Kemin submitted data collected from in-house trials and university research that demonstrate that its proposed applications of ≤ 0.5 percent liquid sodium propionate alone or ≤ 0.4 percent for the liquid blend of sodium propionate with benzoate are effective in controlling the growth of
To show that its proposed uses of liquid sodium propionate alone or in a blend with sodium benzoate do not conceal damage or inferiority when used in meat or poultry products, Kemin conducted studies to demonstrate that the use of these substances does not affect normal spoilage indicators in RTE poultry products. The studies compared products containing Kemin's antimicrobial treatments at use rates of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 percent sodium propionate alone, or 0.4 percent when combined with sodium benzoate, with an untreated control or a product containing the current industry standard lactate. The studies showed that, although growth of spoilage microorganisms was significantly different in products from replicate trials, the competitive microflora did not appear to have been affected by Kemin's antimicrobial substances, and normal spoilage indicators were not disguised. In addition, Kemin submitted data to demonstrate that proposed uses of liquid sodium propionate alone or in a blend with sodium benzoate do not negatively affect color, texture and other sensory attributes, nutritional profile, or consumer acceptance when used at rates of up to 0.5 percent alone or 0.4 percent with sodium benzoate.
The Kemin petition and supporting material are available for viewing by the public on the FSIS Web site at
FSIS has reviewed the data that Kraft and Kemin have submitted in support of their petitions and has determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid, under the conditions proposed in the petitions, are both safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain RTE meat and poultry products. Therefore, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 424.23(a)(3) to remove these substances from the list of prohibited substances that may be used “* * * in or on any product, only as provided in 9 CFR Chapter III.”
If this proposed rule is finalized, use of these substances in or on meat or poultry products will continue to be approved by FDA for safety and by FSIS for suitability. FDA will continue to establish the parameters of the approved use under its regulatory system, and FSIS will list approved uses of these substances in the table of approved substances in Directive 7120.1. The proposed amendment will make the procedures for listing approved uses of sodium propionate, benzoic acid, and sodium benzoate consistent with the procedures for listing other safe and suitable substances. This proposed rule will also expedite the listing of substances, such as sodium benzoate and sodium propionate, which enhance food safety by controlling
FSIS is not proposing to remove potassium sorbate, propylparaben (propyl p-hydroxybenzoate), and calcium propionate from the list of prohibited substances in 9 CFR 424.23(a)(3) because the petitions did not include data on the use of these substances in meat or poultry products. Therefore, if this proposed rule is finalized, approved new uses of potassium sorbate, propylparaben (propyl p-hydroxybenzoate), and calcium propionate would continue to be listed through rulemaking. FSIS requests comments and supporting data on whether the Agency should remove any of these substances from 9 CFR 424.23(a)(3) and list their approved new uses in FSIS Directive 7120.1.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under EO 12866.
This proposed rule would eliminate the need for FSIS to conduct rulemakings each time that the use of certain substances identified in § 424.23(a)(3), i.e., sodium propionate, sodium benzoate, and benzoic acid, is found to be safe by FDA and suitable by FSIS for use in the production of meat and poultry products at specified levels. This proposed rule would benefit companies that want to use these substances in the production of meat and poultry products by expediting the approval process. It would also benefit consumers by expediting the approved use of substances that enhance food safety by controlling the growth of
There are no expected costs associated with this proposed rule. All substances intended for use in the production of meat and poultry
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FSIS Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This determination is based primarily on the fact that the proposed rule would not affect the process for approving new uses of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid in meat or poultry products. This proposed rule would make the process of listing approved uses of these substances more efficient by eliminating the need for FSIS to conduct rulemaking each time a new use is approved.
This rule does not contain any new information collection or record keeping requirements that are subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601,
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule: (1) Has no retroactive effect; and (2) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule. However, the administrative procedures specified in 9 CFR 306.5, 381.35, and 590.300 through 590.370, respectively, must be exhausted before any judicial challenge may be made of the application of the provisions of the proposed rule, if the challenge involves any decision of an FSIS employee relating to inspection services provided under the FMIA, PPIA, or EPIA.
FSIS will announce the availability of this proposed rule on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at
Food additives, Food packaging, Meat inspection, Poultry and poultry products.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9 CFR part 424 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 424 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
2. Revise § 424.23(a)(3) as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) Sorbic acid, calcium sorbate, sodium sorbate, and other salts of sorbic acid shall not be used in cooked sausages or any other meat; sulfurous acid and salts of sulfurous acid shall not be used in or on any meat; and niacin or nicotinamide shall not be used in or on fresh meat product; except that potassium sorbate, propylparaben (propyl p-hydroxybenzoate), and calciumpropionate, may be used in or on any product, only as provided in 9 CFR chapter III.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed interpretative statement.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is proposing this interpretative statement to provide guidance regarding the applicability of the confidentiality and indemnification provisions set forth in new section 21(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) added by section 728 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The Commission requests comment on all aspects of the proposed interpretative statement. The proposed interpretative statement clarifies that the provisions of section 21(d) should not operate to inhibit or prevent foreign regulatory authorities from accessing data in which they have an independent and sufficient regulatory interest, even if that data also has been reported pursuant to the CEA and Commission regulations.
Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2012.
Comments, identified by RIN number 3038-AD83, may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Adedayo Banwo, Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 418.6249,
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
In this release, the Commission addresses issues raised by foreign regulators with respect to the scope and application of the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of new section 21(d) of the CEA and proposes to clarify that these provisions should not operate to inhibit or prevent foreign regulatory authorities from accessing data in which they have an independent and sufficient regulatory interest.
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act.
To enhance transparency, promote standardization and reduce systemic risk, section 727 of the Dodd-Frank Act added to the CEA new section 2(a)(13)(G),
CEA section 21(c)(7) requires that SDRs make data available to certain domestic and foreign regulators
Section 752 of the Dodd-Frank Act seeks to “promote effective and consistent global regulation of swaps,” and provides that the CFTC and foreign regulators “may agree to such information-sharing arrangements as may be deemed to be necessary or appropriate in the public interest. * * *”
On June 8, 2011, the Chairman of the CFTC and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Chairmen”) jointly submitted a letter to Michel Barnier, European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services,
On September 1, 2011, the Commission adopted regulations implementing CEA section 21's registration standards, duties, and core principles for SDRs. To implement the provisions of section 21(c)(7) and (d), the Commission adopted definitions and standards for determining access by domestic and foreign regulators to data maintained by SDRs.
The Commission acknowledged in the SDR Final Rules that the CEA's indemnification requirement could have the unintended effect of inhibiting direct access by other regulators to data maintained by SDRsdue to various home country laws and regulations.
The confidentiality and indemnification provisions of new CEA section 21 apply only when a regulatory authority seeks access to data from an SDR. In the SDR Final Rules, the Commission noted that section 8(e) of the CEA provides for the Commission (as opposed to an SDR) to share confidential information in its possession with any department or agency of the Government of the United States, or with any foreign futures authority, department or agency of any foreign government or political subdivision thereof,
The SDR Final Rules became effective on October 31, 2011.
As noted above, section 752(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Commission to consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities regarding the establishment of consistent international standards for the regulation of swaps and various “swap entities.” Section 752(a) also provides that the Commission “may agree to such information-sharing arrangements [
The Commission is committed to a cooperative international approach to the registration and regulation of SDRs, and consulted extensively with various foreign regulatory authorities in promulgating both its proposed and final regulations concerning SDRs.
In developing the SDR Final Rules, the Commission received several comments regarding access to SDR data by foreign regulatory authorities and the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of CEA section 21(d). The Commission has considered these comments in formulating this proposed interpretation but requests further comment concerning the specific interpretative statement proposed.
Managed Funds Association (“MFA”) requested that the Commission actively participate in facilitating foreign regulatory access and confirming a foreign regulator's authority in connection with any SDR data request.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) stated that the “indemnification provisions should not apply in situations where regulators are carrying out regulatory responsibilities, acting in a manner consistent with international agreements and maintaining the confidentiality of data.”
Consistent with the international harmonization envisioned by section 752 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission has engaged in consultations with foreign regulatory authorities regarding the Commission's regulations relating to the Dodd-Frank Act. During these consultations, many foreign regulatory authorities have expressed concern about the difficulty in complying with the indemnification provisions of CEA section 21(d).
As a consequence of these consultations with foreign regulatory
While the SDR Final Rules address foreign regulators with supervisory authority and regulatory responsibility, the Commission is proposing the following interpretative statement, pursuant to section 752, to ensure that foreign regulators receive sufficient access to data reported to SDRs where such foreign regulators have an independent and sufficient regulatory interest.
In this proposed interpretative statement, the CFTC provides guidance regarding the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of CEA section 21(d). As noted above, the Commission seeks comment from interested members of the public on all aspects of this proposed interpretative statement.
The Commission understands that some registered SDRs also maybe registered, recognized or otherwise authorized in a foreign jurisdiction and may accept swap data reported pursuant to the foreign regulatory regime. The Commission concludes that the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of CEA section 21(d) generally apply only to such data reported pursuant to the CEA and Commission regulations.
The Commission further concludes that the confidentiality and indemnification provisions should not operate to inhibit or prevent foreign regulatory authorities from accessing data in which they have an independent and sufficient regulatory interest (even if that data also has been reported pursuant to the CEA and Commission regulations).
Accordingly, and consistent with the Commission's SDR Final Rules, the Commission proposes to interpret CEA section 21(d) such that a registered SDR would not be subject to the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of that section if:
• Such registered SDR also is registered, recognized or otherwise authorized in a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime; and
• The data sought to be accessed by a foreign regulatory authority has been reported to such registered SDR pursuant to the foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime.
This proposed interpretative guidance is grounded in principles of international law and comity. For example, in
Specifically, section 403 of the Third Restatement of Foreign Relations Law states, in relevant part:
Whether exercise of jurisdiction over a person or activity is unreasonable is determined by evaluating all relevant factors, including, where appropriate:
(a) The link of the activity to the territory of the regulating state, i.e., the extent to which the activity takes place within the territory, or has substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect upon or in the territory;
(b) The connections, such as nationality, residence, or economic activity, between the regulating state and the person principally responsible for the activity to be regulated, or between that state and those whom the regulation is designed to protect;
(c) The character of the activity to be regulated, the importance of regulation to the regulating state, the extent to which other states regulate such activities, and the degree to which the desirability of such regulation is generally accepted;
(d) The existence of justified expectations that might be protected or hurt by the regulation;
(e) The importance of the regulation to the international political, legal, or economic system;
(f) The extent to which the regulation is consistent with the traditions of the international system;
(g) The extent to which another state may have an interest in regulating the activity; and
(h) The likelihood of conflict with regulation by another state.
To avoid unreasonable interference with the sovereign authority of foreign regulators, this proposed interpretative statement is supported and underpinned by principles of international law and comity.
In the Commission's view, a foreign regulator's access to data held in a registered SDR that also is registered, recognized, or otherwise authorized in a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime, where the data sought to be accessed has been reported pursuant to that regulatory regime, should be governed by such foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime. The Commission concludes that application of the requirements of CEA section 21(d) in these circumstances is unreasonable in light of, among other things, the importance of such data to the foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime, foreign regulators' interest in unfettered access to such data, and the traditions of mutual trust and cooperation among international regulators.
Therefore, the Commission proposes that a foreign regulator's access to data from a registered SDR that also is registered, recognized, or otherwise authorized in a foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime, where the data to be accessed has been reported pursuant to that regulatory regime, will be dictated by that foreign jurisdiction's regulatory regime and not by the CEA or Commission regulations. Such access is appropriate, in the Commission's view, even if the applicable data is also reported to the registered SDR pursuant to the Commission's Data Final Rules.
Additionally, the Commission reiterates that a foreign regulatory authority, like domestic regulators, can nonetheless receive confidential data, without the execution of a confidentiality and indemnification agreement, from the Commission (as opposed to an SDR) pursuant to section 8(e) of the CEA.
The Commission requests comment on all aspects of its proposed interpretative statement. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the following issue: How would the timing and implementation of foreign jurisdictions' regulatory regimes affect the Commission's proposed interpretative guidance?
By the Commission.
The following appendices will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Gensler and Commissioners Sommers, Chilton, O'Malia and Wetjen voted in the affirmative; no Commissioner votes in the negative.
I support the proposed interpretative statement regarding the application of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) indemnification provisions for swap data repositories (SDRs). The Commission is working closely with international regulators on a collaborative approach regarding how data may be accessed by regulators. The proposed guidance, which benefited from international input, states the Commission's view that foreign regulators will not be subject to the indemnification provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act if the SDR is registered, recognized or otherwise authorized by foreign law and the data to be accessed is reported to the SDR pursuant to foreign law. The public will now have an opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance, and I look forward to the public's input.
I concur in the issuance of this Proposed Interpretative Statement Regarding the Confidentiality and Indemnification Provisions of Section 21(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Proposed Interpretive Statement). It provides some additional clarification with respect to how the Commission intends to interpret the application of the Section 21(d) indemnification provisions beyond what the Commission stated when it finalized the swap data repository (SDR) rules.
When finalizing the SDR rules, the Commission stated that a foreign regulator may have direct access to confidential swap data reported to and maintained by an SDR registered with the Commission without executing a Confidentiality and Indemnification Agreement when the SDR is also registered with the foreign regulator and the foreign regulator is acting in a regulatory capacity with respect to the SDR.
Aside from making this point, the Proposed Interpretive Statement does not provide any information that cannot be otherwise gleaned from the SDR final rules, with one notable exception. The final SDR rules define an “Appropriate Foreign Regulator” as one that has supervisory authority over an SDR that is
I should note that the indemnification provisions of Section 21(d) may have an adverse effect on U.S. regulators too. The Proposed Interpretive Statement touches on a distinction drawn in Part 49 between “Appropriate Domestic Regulators,” which include a number of domestic regulatory authorities, and an “Appropriate Domestic Regulator with Regulatory Responsibility over a Swap Data Repository” (a single entity subcategory of Appropriate Domestic Regulators, namely, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)). Only the latter category of domestic regulator (i.e. the SEC) is exempt from the indemnification provisions of Section 21(d). While it makes sense that the SEC should be able to receive SDR data directly from an SDR absent an indemnification agreement, I encourage comments as to whether other Appropriate Domestic Regulators should have similar access.
I concur in support of the Commission's proposed interpretative statement (“Proposed Interpretative Statement”) regarding the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of Section 21(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”).
Ultimately, Congress should repeal the confidentiality and indemnification provisions of Section 21(d) of the CEA and the Commission should publicly support that repeal. Absent a legislative fix, however, I believe the Commission is taking the right step to allay the concerns expressed by many foreign regulatory authorities.
I am somewhat concerned that the Proposed Interpretative Statement does not address one important issue. Specifically, the Proposed Interpretative Statement would not provide foreign regulatory authorities with access to swaps data if those authorities had not yet finalized their regulations. In order to better understand the public's view on this issue, I have added a question seeking comment on how the timing and implementation of foreign jurisdictions' regulatory regimes should affect the Commission's final interpretation.
Lastly, I am pleased that this Proposed Interpretative Statement is based on principles of international harmonization and comity. The Commission should continue to consult with foreign regulatory authorities in a manner consistent with international agreements regarding the registration of swap data repositories and the sharing of swaps data. In my view, these principles should establish the foundation of the Commission's forthcoming rulemaking concerning the extraterritorial application of the Dodd-Frank Act to foreign-based entities. Several foreign jurisdictions are in the process of finalizing new rules for the regulation of swaps and it is important that those rules provide a level and competitive playing field for U.S. firms as well.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization, petitions for the approval of modified Transmission Planning Reliability Standard, TPL-001-2 (Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements), which combines four currently effective TPL Reliability Standards, TPL-001-1, TPL-002-1b, TPL-003-1a, and TPL-004-1, into a single standard. NERC also requests retirement of the currently-effective TPL standards. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposes to remand proposed Reliability Standard, TPL-001-2. The proposed Reliability Standard includes a provision that would allow a transmission planner to plan for non-consequential load loss following a single contingency provided that the plan is documented and vetted in an open and transparent stakeholder process. The Commission believes that, with the inclusion of this provision, proposed TPL-001-2 does not meet the statutory criteria for approval.
Comments are due July 6, 2012.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number by any of the following methods:
•
•
Eugene Blick (Technical Information),Office of Electric Reliability,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426,Telephone: (202) 502-8066,
Robert T. Stroh (Legal Information),Office of the General Counsel,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,888 First Street NE.,Washington, DC 20426,Telephone: (202) 502-8473,
1. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), petitions for the approval of Reliability Standard, TPL-001-2 (Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements), which combines four currently effective TPL Reliability Standards, TPL-001-1, TPL-002-1b, TPL-003-1a, and TPL-004-1, into a single standard. NERC also requests retirement of the currently effective TPL standards. Pursuant to section 215(d) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposes to remand proposed Reliability Standard, TPL-001-2. The proposed Reliability Standard includes a provision in Table 1 (Steady State and Stability Performance Extreme Events), footnote 12 that would allow a transmission planner to plan for “non-consequential load loss,” i.e., load shedding, following a single contingency provided that the plan is documented and alternatives are considered and subject to review in an open and transparent stakeholder process. As discussed below, the Commission believes that this provision is vague and unenforceable because it does not adequately define the circumstance in which an entity can plan for non-consequential load loss following a single contingency. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to find that, with the inclusion of this provision, proposed TPL-001-2 does not meet the statutory criteria for approval that a mandatory Reliability Standard must be just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
2. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 introduces significant revisions and improvements to the Transmission Planning Reliability Standards, including increased specificity of data required for modeling conditions, and requires planners to address the impact of the unavailability of long lead-time critical equipment in a manner consistent with the entity's spare equipment strategy.
3. We are concurrently issuing a Final Rule in Docket No. RM11-18-000 that remands a related Reliability Standard, TPL-002-0b, which contains the same objectionable stakeholder process provision in Table 1, footnote `b'.
4. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Approved Reliability Standards are enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
5. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to
6. The currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards consists of four approved standards and are intended to ensure that the transmission system is planned and designed to meet an appropriate and specific set of reliability criteria. Transmission planning is a process that involves a number of stages including developing a model of the Bulk-Power System, using this model to assess the performance of the system for a range of operating conditions and contingencies, determining those operating conditions and contingencies that have an undesirable reliability impact, identifying the nature of potential options, and developing and evaluating a range of solutions and selecting the preferred solution, taking into account the time needed to place the solution in service.
7. In Order No. 693, the Commission accepted the Version 0 TPL Reliability Standards and directed NERC, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), to develop modifications to TPL-001-0 through TPL-004-0 through the Reliability Standards development process. In addition, the Commission neither approved nor remanded two other planning Reliability Standards, TPL-005-0 and TPL-006-0, as these two Reliability Standards applied only to regional reliability organizations.
8. With regard to Reliability Standard TPL-002-0b, Table 1, footnote `b', the Commission directed NERC to clarify footnote `b' regarding the loss of non-consequential load for a single contingency event. In a March 18, 2010 order, the Commission directed NERC to submit a modification to footnote `b' responsive to the Commission's directive in Order No. 693, by June 30, 2010.
9. In response to the March 2010 and June 2010 Orders, on March 31, 2011, NERC submitted proposed TPL-002-1 (Version 1), which proposed to modify footnote `b' to permit planned interruption of Firm Demand when documented and subject to an open stakeholder process. On October 20, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed to remand to NERC the proposed modification to footnote `b' because it does not adequately clarify or define the circumstances in which an entity can plan to use interruption of Firm Demand as a mitigation plan to resolve a single contingency.
10. On October 19, 2011, NERC filed a petition seeking approval of Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, the associated implementation plan and Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), as well as five new definitions to be added to the NERC Glossary of Terms (Version 2). NERC also seeks approval of the retirement of the following four Reliability Standards: TPL-001-1 (System Performance Under Normal (No Contingency) Conditions (Category A)); TPL-002-1b (System Performance Following Loss of a Single Bulk Electric System (BES) Element (Category B)); TPL-003-1a (System Performance Following Loss of Two or More BES Elements (Category C)); and TPL-004-1 (System Performance Following Extreme Events Resulting in the Loss of Two or More Bulk Electric System Elements (Category D)). In addition, NERC requests to withdraw two pending Reliability Standards: TPL-005-0 (Regional and Interregional Self-Assessment Reliability Reports) and TPL-006-0.1 (Data from the Regional Reliability Organization Needed to Assess Reliability).
11. The Version 2 standard also includes language similar to NERC's Version 1 March 31, 2011, proposal to revise and clarify footnote `b' of Table 1 applicable in four currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards “in regard to non-consequential firm load loss in the event of a single contingency.”
12. As proposed by NERC, TPL-001-2 includes eight requirements and Table 1, summarized as follows:
An objective of the planning process should be to minimize the likelihood and magnitude of Non-Consequential Load Loss following Contingency events. However, in limited circumstances Non-Consequential Load Loss may be needed to address BES performance requirements. When Non-Consequential Load Loss is utilized within the planning process to address BES performance requirements, such interruption is limited to circumstances where the Non-Consequential Load Loss is documented, including alternatives evaluated; and where the utilization of Non-Consequential Load Loss is subject to review in an open and transparent stakeholder process that includes addressing stakeholder comments.
13. The Commission proposes to remand proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2. The proposed footnote 12 included as part of Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, which is in all material respects the same as the Version 1 footnote `b' proposal described in Docket No. RM11-18-000, is unjust and unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, and not in the public interest. Although there are many improvements in the proposed TPL-001-2, the presence of footnote 12 in proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 requires that the Commission remand the entire proposed Reliability Standard.
14. As described in the Final Rule in Docket No. RM11-18-000, the Commission believes that NERC's footnote `b' proposal (footnote 12 in this NOPR proceeding) does not clarify or define the circumstances in which an entity can plan to interrupt Non-Consequential Load Loss for a single contingency. The Commission is concerned that footnote 12 is inadequate and fails to address the Commission's concerns for three reasons. First, proposed footnote 12 lacks adequate parameters. Second, the NERC proposal leaves undefined the circumstances in
15. While we propose to remand Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 because of footnote 12, the Commission sees improvements to the balance of the proposed Reliability Standard. The Commission recognizes the level of complexity and substantial revision that NERC undertook to consolidate the requirements in the four currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards into one standard, and that effort has yielded improvements relative to the current set of standards. The Commission, however, seeks comments from the ERO and other interested persons regarding the following important reliability issues to ensure that the proposed Reliability Standard adequately maintains reliability and that the directives have been met: (a) Planned Maintenance Outages, (b) Violation Risk Factors, (c) Protection System Failures versus Relay Failures, (d) Assessment of Backup or Redundant Protection Systems, (e) Single Line to Ground Faults, and (f) Order No. 693 Directives.
16. NERC proposed new language in TPL-001-2, Requirement R1 to remove an ambiguity in the current standard concerning what the planner needs to include in the specific studies. It also requires the planner to evaluate six-month or longer duration outages within its system. NERC states that while Requirement R1.3.12 of the currently-effective TPL-002-0b, includes planned outages (including maintenance outages) in the planning studies and requires simulations at the demands levels for which the planned outages are performed, it is not appropriate to have the planner select specific planned outages for inclusion in their studies. Consequently, NERC proposes a bright-line test to determine whether an outage should be included in the system models. Specifically, NERC proposes that Requirement R1, Part 1.1.2 mandate that the system models “shall represent * * * known outage(s) of generation or Transmission Facility(ies) with a duration of at least six months.”
17. In Order No. 693 the Commission stated that in the currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards a planner must demonstrate through a valid assessment that the transmission system performance requirements can be met. The TPL Reliability Standards require that planned outages of transmission equipment must be considered for those demand levels for which planned outages are performed. By modeling the planned transmission equipment outages and through the simulation of various contingency events, a planner must demonstrate that the system can be operated to supply projected customer demands for all maintenance outage conditions and that amongst other things, cascading or system instability will not occur.
18. For example, PJM has recently evaluated a Doubs-Mt. Storm project which includes the replacement of structures that have deteriorated beyond repair, which has resulted in the need to rebuild the transmission circuit. PJM indicates the maintenance outages will be scheduled in four month blocks, September—December and February—May, starting in 2011 through 2015. PJM's analysis indicates that a list of facilities has been determined that should not be scheduled out concurrently with the Doubs-Mt. Storm project. Furthermore, PJM analysis indicated that if any outage on this list of identified facilities must be taken out of service, every effort shall be made to align them with the lightest load period possible.
19. The Commission seeks comment from the ERO and interested persons whether the six month threshold would materially change the number of planned outages as compared to the current standard. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the threshold would exclude almost all planned outages from future planning assessments, such as nuclear plant refueling, large fossil and hydro generating station maintenance, spring and fall transmission construction projects and items indentified in correction actions plans of planning assessments including neighboring corrective action plans. The Commission also seeks comment on what alternative, whether based on outage duration shorter than six months or some other method, such as planners' accounting for planned maintenance outages of high capacity lines, critical transformers, or nuclear outages during non-peak load periods in their assessments, captures the appropriate number of planned outages and types of planned outages to ensure that the Bulk-Power System can be operated to meet system performance requirements during high maintenance periods like the spring and fall seasons. In addition to seasonal peaks, there have been significant system incidents which occur because of unusual weather events during non-seasonal peak periods. The Commission seeks comment on whether a six month outage window would sufficiently capture these events or if they would not be addressed in the proposed planning process. In addition, with respect to protection system maintenance, currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-002-0, Requirement R1.3.12 requires the planner to “[i]nclude the planned (including maintenance) outage of any bulk electric equipment (including
20. NERC assigned a “Medium” VRF for proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, Requirement R1 and its sub-requirements. NERC states each primary requirement in the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 is assigned a VRF considering the NERCguidelines and consistent with NERC's August 10, 2009 informational filing.
21. NERC stated in its filing that “Requirement R1 of the proposed TPL-001-2 explicitly requires the Transmission Planner and Planning Coordinator to maintain System models.”
22. Furthermore, Requirement R1 of the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 explicitly addresses the establishment of Category P0 as the normal system condition in Table 1, which creates the model of the normal system as the “Initial Condition” prior to any contingency.
23. Consistent with Guideline 3 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines, the Commission “expects the assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to Requirements that address similar reliability goals to be treated comparably.”
24. NERC proposes to assign a “Low” VRF for Requirement R6 from the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 because “failure to have established criteria for determining System instability is an administrative requirement affecting a planning time frame.”
25. Requirement R6 requires planning coordinators and transmission planners to define and document the criteria or methodology used in their analyses to identify system instability for conditions such as cascading, voltage instability or uncontrolled islanding. The Commission recognizes that documenting criteria or methodology is an administrative act. However, defining the criteria or methodology to be used is not an administrative act. If the criteria or methodology used by planning coordinators and transmission planners are not defined properly, the analysis based on this criteria or methodology could lose its validity and “could, under emergency, abnormal, or restorative conditions anticipated by the preparations, directly cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability, separation, or a cascading sequence of failures, or could place the Bulk-Power System at an unacceptable risk of instability, separation, or cascading failures, or could hinder restoration to a normal condition.”
26. Requirement R6 co-mingles a higher reliability objective (defining criteria or methodology) with a lower reliability objective (documentation). Consistent with Guideline 5 of the Commission's VRF Guidelines, the Commission seeks to ensure that the assignment of Violation Risk Factors corresponding to co-mingled Requirements reflect the higher reliability objective of the co-mingled requirement.
27. NERC states that its modification to the planning contingency categories in Table 1 of the proposed standard is intended to add clarity and consistency regarding how a delayed fault clearing will be modeled in planning studies. NERC states that the basic elements of any protection system design involve inputs (i.e., current and D/C and A/C voltage) to protective relays and outputs (i.e., trip signals, close signals, and
28. In the currently-effective TPL Reliability Standards, Table 1 contingencies address the initiating event and contingency of a single line to ground (SLG) fault with delayed clearing (stuck breaker or protection system failure) for a generator, transformer, transmission circuit and bus section. For this initiating event and set of contingencies, the planner must demonstrate that Table 1 system performance criteria can be met.
29. Currently-effective Reliability Standard TPL-003-0, Requirement R1.3.1 states that current or past study and/or system simulation testing “[b]e performed and evaluated only for those Category C contingencies that would produce the more severe system results or impacts.”
30. Requirement R1.3.1 states that in the study and simulation of a protection system failure, the planner should assess the contingencies that produce the more severe system results.
31. The Commission believes that based on various protection system as-built designs, the planner will have to choose which protection system component failure would have the most significant impact on the Bulk-Power System because as-built designs are not standardized and the most critical component failure may not always be the relay. For example, if a protection system design used one set of fuses to supply power to both the primary and breaker failure relays, failure of one fuse would be more severe than failure of either one of the relays. Similar dependencies can occur in specific designs in the implementation of microprocessor installations. As another example, if a protection system designed includes a shared voltage or current sensing device that provides input to relays for both the primary and backup protection systems, failure of this voltage sensing device would be more severe than failure of either one of the relays.
32. As a result, the planner's selection of a protection system component failure may be influenced by the protection system as-built design. If one protection system component was an integral component of primary protection and breaker failure protection, then it is possible that the loss of that one component would produce the more severe system impact. If, in this example, the protection system component failure was not a relay component, as described in Category P5 of the proposed TPL Standard, it appears that this more severe contingency (loss of both the primary protection and breaker failure protection systems due to the loss of one protection system component) would not be assessed under the proposed TPL Reliability Standard.
33. The Commission seeks comments on whether the proposed TPL Reliability Standard, in the provisions pertaining to study of multiple contingencies, limits the planners' assessment of a protection system failure because it only includes the contingency of a faulty relay component. The Commission also seeks comments on whether, based on protection system as-built designs, the relay may not always be the larger contingency, and how the loss of protection system components that may be integral to multiple protection systems impacts reliability.
34. NERC states that proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, Requirement R3, Part 3.3.1 and Requirement R4, Part 4.3.1 require that simulations faithfully duplicate what will happen in an actual power system based on the expected performance of the protection systems.
35. The current TPL Reliability Standards state that a planner must include the effects of existing and planned protection systems, including any backup or redundant systems in its planning assessment.
36. NERC states that Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, Requirement R3, Part 3.3.1 and Requirement R4, Part 4.3.1 require the planner to “[s]imulate the removal of all elements that the Protection System and other automatic controls are expected to disconnect for each Contingency without operator intervention.” The proposed NERC provision, however, does not explicitly refer to “backup or redundant systems” as in the currently effective TPL standards. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO whether the proposed Requirements address all protection systems, including backup and redundant protection systems that can have an impact on the performance of the bulk electric system.
37. Table 1 of the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 identifies the
38. The proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2, Table 1 includes a column titled “fault type,” which contains the specific designation of the fault type such as SLG or three-phase faults. “Fault type” is described as a SLG or three-phase fault types that must be evaluated in stability simulations for the event described. For example, a SLG fault could evolve into a 3-phase fault, but the initiating fault is the SLG fault and the associated SLG performance criteria must be applied, not the three-phase performance criteria. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO whether “fault types” in Table 1 of the proposed Reliability Standard refers to the initiating event or initiating fault for the contingency rather than the type of fault in to which the initiating fault may evolve and how the clarification is consistent with the simulations being representative of what will occur in real-time.
39. While the Commission proposes to remand based on the presence of footnote 12, the balance of proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 appears responsive to the Order No. 693 directives regarding the TPL Reliability Standards. The Commission, however, seeks clarification and comment on the following.
40. In Order No. 693, the Commission stated that it “sees no reason why peer reviews should not be part of a Reliability Standard since TPL-001-0 through TPL-004-0 already include…a review of assessment by the associated regional reliability organization.”
The Commission also stated that because neighboring systems may be adversely impacted by other neighboring systems, such systems should be involved in determining and reviewing system conditions and contingencies to be assessed under the currently-effective TPL Standards.
41. NERC states the proposed Reliability Standard does not include a “peer review” of planning assessments but instead includes “an equally effective and efficient manner to provide for the appropriate sharing of information with neighboring systems” with the incorporation of Requirement R3, Part 3.4.1, Requirement R4, Part 4.4.1, and Requirement R8.
The Planning Coordinator and Transmission Planner shall coordinate with adjacent Planning Coordinators and Transmission Planners to ensure that Contingencies on adjacent Systems which may impact their Systems are included in the Contingency list.
42. The Commission seeks clarification on how the NERC proposal ensures the early input of peers into the planning assessments or any type of coordination amongst peers will occur. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how there is a sufficient level of evaluation and ability to provide feedback to the planners on the development and result of assessments. In addition, NERC states that that Requirement R8 “ensures that information is shared with * * * adjacent entities” which “ensures * * * input received from adjacent entities.”
43. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed NERC to develop a modification “to require assessments of outages of critical long lead-time equipment, consistent with the entity's spare equipment strategy.”
44. NERC's spare equipment strategy appears to have limited the strategy to steady state analysis (excluded stability analysis).
45. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed the ERO to modify footnote (c) of Table 1 to the Reliability Standard TPL-003-0a to clarify the term “controlled load interruption” to “ensure that third parties have access to the same options that the transmission owner uses to alleviate reliability constraints including those related to controlled load shedding.”
46. The term “controlled load interruption” is found in footnote (c) which is applicable to “Loss of Demand or Curtailed Firm Transfers” in Table 1 of the existing TPL Reliability Standards. The term “Loss of Demand or Curtailed Firm Transfers” for controlled load interruptions in Table 1 of the current TPL Standards appears to be applicable to “Non-Consequential Load Loss Allowed” in Table 1 of the proposed TPL Standard. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO if third-parties have access to the same options that the transmission owner has to alleviate reliability constraints including load shedding options for “Controllable Loads” in Requirement 2.1.4 and “Non-Consequential Load Loss Allowed” in Table 1 of the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2.
47. In Order No. 693 the Commission directed the ERO to modify Reliability Standard TPL-004-0 to require that, in determining the range of the extreme events to be assessed, the contingency list of Category D would be expanded to include recent events such as hurricanes and ice storms. NERC's proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 appropriately expands the list of extreme event examples in Table 1, but the list limits these items to the loss of two generating stations under Item No. 3a.
48. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO on conditioning extreme events on the loss of two generating stations.
49. The Commission seeks clarification from the ERO that planning assessments and associated documentation will include accurate representations of results on the bulk electric system with respect to the following.
50. In Order No. 693, the Commission directed “the ERO to modify the Reliability Standard to require documentation of load models used in system studies and the supporting rationale for their use.”
51. In Order No. 693, the Commission observed that “if an entity models overload relays, undervoltage relays, all remedial action schemes including those of neighboring systems and has a good load representation, then proxies are not required. However, due to modeling and simulation limitations this is often not the case and planners invariably use proxies.”
52. NERC states that proposed Requirement R6 “specifies that an entity must define and document the criteria or methodology used to identify system instability for conditions such as cascading, voltage instability, or uncontrolled islanding within its Planning Assessment.”
53. In Order No. 693 the Commission directed NERC to modify “footnote (a) of Table 1 with regard to applicability of emergency rating and consistency of normal ratings and voltages with values obtained from other reliability standards.”
54. The Commission observes that the proposed standard applies header note `e' to “Steady State and Stability” while header note `f' is excluded from “Stability” and only applies to “Steady
55. The Commission proposes to remand NERC's proposed TPL Reliability Standard. While much of the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 appears just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest, we find that footnote 12, allowing for transmission planners to plan for non-consequential load loss following a single contingency without adequate safeguards, undermines the potential benefits the proposed Reliability Standard may provide . This is consistent with the Commission's Final Rule in Docket No. RM11-18-000 remanding footnote `b,' which is substantially the same as footnote 12. Thus, the Commission proposes to remand the proposed Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 to NERC.
56. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.
57. As stated above, the subject of this NOPR is NERC's proposed modifications to the TPL Reliability Standards. This NOPR proposes to remand the proposed revisions to NERC. By remanding the proposal, the applicable Reliability Standards and any information collection requirements are unchanged. Therefore, the Commission will submit this NOPR to OMB for informational purposes only.
58. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
59. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
60. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due 60 days from publication in the
61. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
62. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
63. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
64. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
65. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
66. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Norris is concurring in part with a separate statement attached.
In today's order, the Commission proposes to remand proposed Transmission Planning Reliability Standard TPL-001-2 to NERC, based on the decision by the Commission to remand proposed TPL-002-0b in the concurrently-issued
Thus, I respectfully concur in part.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of proposed Buy America waivers and request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) received several requests to waive its Buy America requirements for products used in ticket vending machines—the Mars Electronics International (MEI) Sodeco BNA57/542 Bill Handling Unit, and BNR3-XX, BNR4-XX and BNR5-XX Bank Note Recycler product; and the Nextek Corporation (Nextek) BV-6000AG (BV-6000) Currency Validator Tekpak. FTA seeks public comment before deciding whether to grant the requests.
Comments must be received by June 6, 2012. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Please submit your comments by only one of the following means, identifying your submissions by docket number FTA-2012-0009. All electronic submissions must be made to the U.S. Government electronic site at
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Jayme L. Blakesley at (202) 366-0304 or
The purpose of this notice is to seek public comment on whether the Federal Transit Administration should continue to waive its Buy America requirements for two years for Mars Electronics International (MEI)'s Sodeco BNA57/542 Bill Handling Unit BNR3-XX, BNR4-XX and BNR5-XX Bank Note Recycler products, and the Nextek Corporation's (Nextek) BV-6000AG (BV-6000) Currency Validator Tekpak, or whether FTA should extend the non-shift approach adopted in its 2007 Final Rule (72 FR 53688, September 20, 2007) to the procurement of such devices.
MEI requested an extension of the Buy-America non-availability component waiver under CFR 661.7(g) for the MEI Sodeco BNA57/542 Bill Handling Units. The FTA granted the initial waiver for these products on July 21, 2000, and has extended the waiver periodically ever since, on December 10, 2003, November 12, 2004, October 20, 2006, and February 23, 2009.
Buy America requires, with few exceptions, that all steel, iron and manufactured goods used in FTA-funded projects be produced in the United States. One such exception is that of non-availability, that in some instances steel, iron, and goods produced in the United States are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or are not of a satisfactory quality. Therefore, Congress authorized FTA to waive the above requirement and allow, based on non-availability, the use in an FTA-funded project of steel, iron or manufactured goods produced outside the United States.
According to MEI, the Sodeco BNA57/542 Bill Handling Units includes a multiple bill escrow (up to 15 bills) that enables return of the customer's inserted bills in situations where the transaction is not complete. The unit has the ability to identify, validate and accept multiple note denominations (US $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100) utilizing all optical recognition, and allowing for the acceptance of bills in a face up or face down orientation. It also supports remote download, giving a transit agency the option of downloading new bill recognition software (bill variants) via network from one central location.
MEI's customers include the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), New York City Transit (MTA), and the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART).
In 1999, to support its initial waiver request, MEI performed a market research study. It found no equivalent products manufactured within the United States. In preparation of the instant waiver request, MEI reviewed its earlier findings and compared them with the known providers of payment systems to the transit market. They found no US manufacturers of functionally equivalent products. Companies they identified who supply a similar product—GAO/Geiseke & Deviran (G&D), Toyocom, and Cashcode—all manufacture their products outside of the United States.
In a letter dated February 28, 2011, MEI requested an extension of the Buy America non-availability component waiver under CFR 667.7(g) for BNY3-XX & BNR5-XX Bank Note Recycler products. The initial waiver was granted by FTA on October 20, 2008. The Bank Note Recycler (BNR) can accept and validate bank notes and pay them back out as change. The unit has the ability to identify, validate and accept multiple bank note denominations (US $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100) utilizing all optical recognition. This allows for the acceptance of bank notes in a face-up or facedown orientation. The unit has multiple-note escrow function (up to 15 Bank notes) that enables return of the customer's inserted bank notes, in situations where the transaction is not complete, or presentation of bank notes
Nextek Corporation (Nextek) requests a Buy America waiver for the BV-6000AG (BV-6000) Currency Validator; which is manufactured in Japan by Toyo Networks & System Integration, Ltd. (TNSi) for use in ticket vending machines. After calling for notice and comment, FTA granted a non-availability waiver to the Nextek Corporation for the BV-6000 on October 20, 2006. No domestic supplier has made itself known to FTA.
In its September 2007 Final Rule (72 FR 53688), FTA adopted a non-shift approach to address the aftermarket procurement of replacement components and subcomponents. Prior to the adoption of the Final Rule, procurements of replacements parts were treated as procurements of end products, i.e., not only must the deliverable item be manufactured in the United States, but each component must also be of domestic origin. Implementation of this policy led to confusion and inconsistencies among transit operators and their suppliers, who urged FTA to adopt a non-shift approach that would treat replacement parts consistent with the procurement of the original product, i.e., if a product was a subcomponent in the initial procurement, it would be treated as a subcomponent in all subsequent procurements. This approach, according to proponents, would foster reasonable predictability and stability in the transit business community, enable bidders and vendors to price proposals more accurately, and allow transit agencies to obtain more competitive pricing.
In the same rulemaking, FTA added the term “system” to its definition of “end product.” Prior to the rulemaking, the manufacturer of a fare collection system filed complaints with FTA concerning the regulatory compliance of a fare collection system manufactured by a competitor. The complainant posited that every mechanical component of the fare collection system should be treated as an end product—ticket vending machines, fareboxes, faregates, etc. not only would have to be manufactured in the United States, but each component of those devices would similarly need to be of domestic origin. Under this interpretation, the petitioners and their customers would have needed a Buy America waiver in order to install a foreign-made bill-handler, bank note recycler, and currency validator into a US-made fare collection device.
In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub L. 109-59, August 10, 2005), Congress directed FTA to address the procurement of systems to ensure that major system procurements were not used to circumvent Buy America requirements. FTA sought comment on whether it should include “systems” within the definition of “end product.” Commenters generally supported this approach, with a caveat that FTA should tightly monitor the treatment of systems to ensure that procurements of extremely large and complex super-systems would not be able to undermine the intent of FTA's Buy America requirements. Among the factors FTA examines in assessing whether a “system” is an “end product” are: (1) Whether the items are the subject of a single procurement; (2) whether the parts of that system are under a single warranty; (3) whether the resulting end product was functionally different from a mere assembly of elements or materials; and most importantly; (4) whether the individual parts performed on a integrated basis with the other parts of the system.
Based on SAFETEA-LU and its 2007 rulemaking, FTA believes fare collection devices can be regarded as components, and their constituent parts treated as subcomponents, which, consistent with 49 CFR 661.5(d)(2), could come from any foreign or domestic source, provided that the component itself was manufactured in the United States. A formal FTA adoption of this approach would eliminate the need for firms such as MEI and Nextek to seek biennial waivers that would permit the inclusion of foreign subcomponents into their devices, particularly when no interested domestic vendor has identified itself to FTA or the two petitioners during the intervening decade.
FTA invites comment on MEI and Nextek's waiver request and the classification of such devices as subcomponents from all interested parties. Commenters may wish to address potential ramifications of categorizing these devices as subcomponents, whether there are domestically-manufactured substitutes, whether petitioners have done an adequate job of reaching out to potential domestic manufacturers, and what FTA can do to encourage domestic firms to manufacture products that are the subject of these non-availability waiver requests.
In the interest of transparency, FTA has published copies of MEI's and Nextek's requests to the docket. Interested parties may submit comments on or before June 6, 2012. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Office of the Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21).
The meeting dates are May 29-30, 2012, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day.
U.S. Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004-1111.
Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) 720-3817; Fax (202) 690-4265; Email
The next meeting of the AC21 has been scheduled for May 29-30, 2012. The AC21 consists of members representing the biotechnology industry, the organic food industry, farming communities, the seed industry, food manufacturers, state government, consumer and community development groups, as well as academic researchers and a medical doctor. In addition, representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative have been invited to serve as “
Background information regarding the work and membership of the AC21 is available on the USDA Web site at
The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Dianne Fowler at (202) 720-4074 or by Email at
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing proposed new procedures that it intends to implement when FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find raw ground beef presumptive positive for
FSIS requests comments on policies and procedures in this notice by July 6, 2012. FSIS intends to evaluate comments, make any necessary changes to policies and procedures based on
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
On March 10, 2010, FSIS held a public meeting to discuss the Agency's ongoing efforts to improve product traceback related to
Under FSIS's current traceback policy, FSIS does not begin conducting any investigations or follow up activities until positive results based on FSIS testing are identified or until outbreaks occur. Based on FSIS positive test results or other Federal or State Agency positive test results, FSIS conducts Food Safety Assessments (FSAs) at establishments that produce product (ground beef, beef manufacturing trimmings, or other raw ground beef components) that is positive for
The contemplated changes discussed at the March 10, 2010, public meeting focused on improving FSIS's ability to quickly trace all adulterated products that are implicated by an
Agency officials also discussed the importance of focusing on slaughter and dressing operations—where contamination is most likely to occur—in mitigating the risk of
Finally, Agency officials described the role played by identifying high event periods (HEPs) in determining whether a systemic breakdown of process control at a slaughter establishment may have led to cross-contamination between multiple production lots. Agency officials explained that this type of loss of process control and cross-contamination would create insanitary conditions that may affect the disposition of intact (primal and subprimal) cuts of beef, in addition to beef manufacturing trimmings. If loss of control leads to insanitary conditions, more product may be adulterated than just the product found positive for the pathogen. In this situation, it is very important that establishments identify all product that may be adulterated and hold that product back from commerce to avoid expensive recalls. FSIS notes that recalls can result in costs of $3-5 million.
Agency officials also described draft compliance guidelines issued by FSIS on August 12, 2008, that included the Agency's then current thinking regarding HEPs.
Public comments made during the meeting and others submitted later stated that FSIS needed to take additional actions related to traceback in instances involving sole source suppliers of
Other commenters stated that additional steps could also be taken to improve traceback methodology in cases where a positive sample is taken from a production lot of ground beef created from multiple sources. Specifically, some commenters suggested that when a production lot of ground beef that was produced from multiple source lots tests positive, FSIS should test any remaining unopened trim from the source production lots to identify which source lot is implicated by the positive ground beef sample.
Other commenters asked questions about the new traceback methodology and requested that FSIS continue to share information about the new methodology and clarify issues concerning the new methodology. Several commenters agreed that establishments should develop or use process control procedures based on HEP criteria that indicate higher than expected rates of positive
FSIS intends to implement additional improved procedures consistent with the procedures it discussed at the public meeting. As is discussed above, inspection program personnel will continue to collect and document information on suppliers at the time of sample collection. Using the supplier information, EIAOs will then conduct traceback investigations at establishments that produced the
As part of their traceback investigations, EIAOs will review establishment test results to determine whether the establishment has experienced a HEP. If the establishment has developed its own supportable HEP criteria, the EIAOs will determine whether it has experienced a HEP based on the establishment's HEP criteria. If it has not, EIAOs will determine whether the establishment has experienced a HEP based on the FSIS criteria discussed below. The occurrence, or lack of occurrence, of a HEP will be one factor that EIAOs will consider when investigating at the establishment that produced positive product or supplied product to an establishment that produced positive product.
Based on all the information gathered, EIAOs will present findings to the District Manager on which to determine whether adulterated product has entered commerce. The EIAO will also make recommendations concerning whether regulatory and enforcement actions are warranted. The District Manager will then determine whether adulterated product entered commerce, and if it has, whether to contact the FSIS Recall Management Staff and whether enforcement actions are appropriate. Consistent with Agency procedures, the Recall Management Staff will lead any Agency requests that establishments recall product.
As is discussed above, EIAOs do not do this type of investigation now until they conduct FSAs. FSAs are scheduled approximately 30 days after the confirmed positive results become available, so they are much later than the investigations FSIS intends to conduct. Also, during the FSAs at this time, EIAOs do not ask all the focused questions FSIS intends to instruct them to ask as part of this new procedure. Finally, EIAOs do not currently evaluate whether the establishment has experienced a HEP on a consistent basis.
(1) FSIS or other Federal or State agencies find raw ground beef positive for
(2) FSIS determines that
(3) FSIS determines that the grinding establishment did not combine material from multiple source lots to create the lot of product that tested positive;
(4) After conducting traceback to identify the slaughter and trim fabrication supplier that provided the sole source material, FSIS determines that the supplier or downstream users split the implicated lot before sending it to the establishment where the positive sample was taken; and
(5) Some portion of the split lot sent to the grinder was sent into commerce for further processing into product that does not receive a full lethality to eliminate
If all of these circumstances occur, FSIS intends to request a recall from the slaughter or trim supplier establishment. If cross contamination did not occur at the grinding establishment, the source materials would be considered adulterated because, based on evidence and available data, contamination occurred at the slaughter or trim establishment.
In the two-year period between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010, 65 Agency samples of ground beef (collected as part of the routine and follow-up sampling programs) tested positive for
Based on the 2009-2010 data, a significant number of ground product lots that FSIS found positive were produced from source materials from sole source suppliers. However, in some circumstances, the grinding establishment may have combined material from multiple source lots to create the lot of product that tested positive. Under these circumstances, the new recall policy would not apply.
FSIS agrees with commenters to the public meeting that removing from commerce source materials that may be contaminated with
HEPs are periods in which slaughter establishments experience a high rate of
To help develop the operational criteria for industry to use to identify HEPs and for EIAOs to consider when conducting traceback procedures, FSIS examined industry data collected by FSIS inspection personnel from the top 33 slaughter establishments, representing 80 percent of industry production volume (number of cattle slaughtered).
The data from the 33 establishments show clustering of positives results. Of the 33 establishments, 32 responses were received, 19 had clear definitions of a HEP, 2 had definitions that were incomplete because they did not specify a frame of time (which we interpreted to be a day), 10 had unclear definitions of a HEP, and 1 did not have a definition. Of the 21 establishments that had clear definitions, 7 were using a 5 percent threshold definition;
Based on these results, FSIS selected a target of 5% for the HEP criteria. Because FSIS did not want to define HEP criteria that would be more rigorous than those of a large number of establishments, we did not select a lower target. FSIS set criteria to help identify exceptional events of poor processing. FSIS did not select a higher target (e.g., 10%) because such a target we believe could result in many cases where poor processing, as defined by most of the industry, would not be detected as HEP.
FSIS intends to identify in the guidance and in instructions to EIAOs two types of HEP that may indicate out-of-control situations in the establishment's production process based on establishment results. As noted above, 10 of the establishments had unclear definitions of HEPs, and one had no definition. If establishments use FSIS's criteria, FSIS would find their HEP definitions supportable. Below are the two types of HEPs.
1. A HEP that indicates a localized out-of-control event in which some specific occurrence or event causes a clustering of
2. A HEP that indicates a systemic break-down or inherent weakness of the process or food safety system. Virtually all raw beef product would likely be affected.
During a systemic break-down situation, establishments may identify
FSIS is setting out criteria for identifying HEPs. These criteria will be especially useful for establishments that have rigorous testing programs. Beef slaughter and fabrication establishments that manufacture 50,000 pounds or more of trimmings daily are likely to conduct sufficient verification testing on same source materials to be able to determine whether a HEP occurred based on the criteria below. Lower volume establishments may choose to test frequently enough to use these criteria. If not, the guidance includes general information for lower volume establishments.
1. For a local HEP: 3 or more
2. For a systemic HEP:
A. 7 or more
B. At establishments that test more than 60 samples per day, from production lots containing same-source materials, the number of
The above criteria are based on high degrees of confidence (establishing sufficient statistical evidence) that the process percentage exceeded 5% during some period. For the systemic HEP based on daily testing of at least 60 samples
Establishments may use the guidance that FSIS has provided as criteria for determining whether they have experienced a HEP. However, the establishment-specific process percent positive could be different than the FSIS criteria (assuming that the sampling plan and analyses are described as above). Consequently, a specified percent positive for a given establishment should be identified and justified if other than that stated by FSIS if past results indicate that a different percent positive was being achieved consistently, and product has low likelihood of being adulterated. Deviations from the previously obtained percent positive should be construed as presumptive evidence that the process is out of control and would warrant investigation to find and eliminate any potential causes for the positive results. As part of their supporting documentation for their hazard analysis (9 CFR 417.5 (a)), FSIS recommends that establishments document the criteria they use to identify HEPs.
Consistent with information FSIS presented at the March 2010 public meeting discussed above, FSIS intends to instruct EIAOs to conduct an investigation at establishments that produced positive
A HEP indicates that production lots of same source material that are presumed to be microbiologically independent (based on test results or other criteria) may no longer be microbiologically independent. As noted above, in such cases, these production lots may be considered to be potentially contaminated with
If a HEP has occurred, FSIS intends to instruct the EIAO to evaluate whether the establishment verified that all controls in place in the slaughter process that are necessary to prevent
Also, if a HEP has occurred, FSIS intends to instruct the EIAO to evaluate whether the establishment found the cause for the HEP and has taken corrective action to prevent future HEPs from recurring.
Finally, if the establishment has experienced a HEP during a “high prevalence season” (from spring into early autumn), FSIS intends to instruct the EIAO to determine whether the establishment increased the frequency of monitoring and verification of both slaughter and dressing procedures and pathogen reduction treatments, and whether the establishment modified its sampling and verification testing programs during the high prevalence season to increase the likelihood of finding the pathogen.
As stated above, the EIAO will present to the District Manager the findings concerning HEPs and all other findings and recommendations, including any evidence indicating that adulterated product has likely entered commerce. Similarly, based on the HEP information, as well as other information collected, the EIAO will make recommendations concerning what regulatory or enforcement actions may be warranted. In addition, if the District Manager determines that adulterated product entered commerce, the Recall Management Staff will lead any Agency requests that establishments recall product. FSIS expects to complete the investigation and take all necessary enforcement actions within one month.
We note that this Notice imposes no new requirements for establishments related to HEPs. The new EIAO instructions and investigation procedures described are only intended to improve and expedite FSIS traceback procedures.
In October 2008, FSIS issued draft guidance entitled, “Label Policy Guidance for N60 Testing Claims for Boneless Beef Manufacturing Trimmings (`Trim') Concerning
FSIS has posted the revised guidance on its Significant Guidance Documents Web page
This guidance, entitled “Compliance Guideline for Establishments Sampling Beef Trimmings for Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) Organisms or Virulence Markers,” is meant to help slaughter establishments develop and implement sampling and testing programs for
Although this document also provides general information for non-slaughter establishments that produce or receive trimmings, the HEP information in the guidance only applies to slaughter establishments that manufacture trim. The HEP guidance will be most useful to slaughter and fabrication establishments that manufacture 50,000 pounds or more of trimmings daily because they are likely to conduct sufficient testing on same source trimmings to be able to determine whether a HEP has occurred. Smaller volume slaughter and fabrication establishments can also use the FSIS suggested criteria, particularly those that involve 10 and 30 samples. Non-slaughter establishments will not know if problems with slaughter and dressing procedures have contributed to a HEP because they do not have the necessary information from the establishment that slaughtered the cattle. FSIS recommends that a slaughter and fabrication establishment conduct sampling and testing of trim at a frequency sufficient to find evidence of contamination surviving the slaughter and dressing operation (optimally every production lot) to best ensure that adulterated product does not enter commerce. Verification testing results on trim are likely the best available information a slaughter establishment can use to determine the effectiveness of its slaughter and dressing operation.
The guidance clarifies that establishments are required to investigate all positive results based on 9 CFR 417.3. In addition, the guidance recommends that establishments take additional actions in response to HEPs. The guidance explains that if the establishment has experienced a HEP, it should carefully investigate to find all contributing causes. This type of investigation would be more involved than a follow-up investigation when an occasional positive result is found.
FSIS's N60 sampling of beef trim and testing of trim for
A labeling claim asserting that beef trim has been sampled, tested, and found negative for
Sampling and testing for
The final guidance document provides assistance to establishments on the use of labels bearing an FSIS sketch approved sampled and tested claim. It provides several examples of labeling claim language that may be appropriate under different circumstances. The final guidance also suggests the kind of documentation that establishments seeking sketch approval may submit to demonstrate that a sampled and tested claim would be truthful and not misleading.
To assist interested establishments to obtain sketch approval of sampled and tested claims, the final guidance retains a description of the HACCP system-related documentation that FSIS believes would demonstrate that a sampled and tested claim is truthful and not misleading. FSIS made some revisions to the guidance for the sake of clarity.
USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, or audiotape.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Evanston-Mountain View Ranger District of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest proposes to treat approximately 4,300 acres of a variety of vegetation types within the 58,000-acre Smiths Fork project analysis area, located in Uinta County, Wyoming, and Summit County, Utah, approximately 25 miles southwest of Mountain View, Wyoming. Proposed treatment acivities include salvage clearcuts; sanitation salvage; and thin, pile, and burn. This proposal is being developed in direct response to the continuing mountain pine beetle epidemic in the area and its potential long-term impacts on the Smiths Fork area. The project is being undertaken under the auspices of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (“HFRA”).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by May 31, 2012. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in August 2012 and the final environmental impact statement is expected November 2012.
Send written comments to: Smiths Fork Vegetation Restoration Project, Attn: Rick Schuler, P.O. Box 1880, Evanston, WY 82931. Comments can also be hand delivered Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the following physical address: 1565 Highway 150, Suite A, Evanston, Wyoming. In addition, comments can be submitted electronically to:
Reviewers should provide comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. Submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in the objection process or judicial review.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in the objection process associated with this project under the HFRA or judicial review.
Pete Gomben, Environmental Coordinator, at 801-236-3407.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The HFRA recognizes healthy forests or forest health as an integral part of forest management. The proposed action responds directly to forest health objectives as described in the HFRA. The purpose of this project is to reduce the effects from current mountain pine beetle infestation in forested stands dominated by lodgepole pine trees and to reduce the susceptibility of vegetation to high-intensity wildfire and further mountain pine beetle attacks. The project is needed to: (1) Salvage forest products from, and manage stand densities on, forested lands classified as suitable for timber production to keep them positively contributing to the national forest's allowable sale quantity; (2) Reduce the effects of tree mortality associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic to restore healthy ecological conditions and scenic quality; (3) Accelerate regeneration of forested stands killed by the mountain pine beetle; and (4) Manage hazardous fuel loading associated with the mountain pine beetle epidemic and salvage operations to minimize the potential for large, high intensity/high severity wildfires.
This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan.
The proposed project includes treatment of approximately 4,300 acres of aspen and lodgepole communities using timber harvest, prescribed fire, and mechanical fuels treatments. Sanitation salvage would be used on approximately 1,730 acres, clearcuts would be used on approximately 1,241 acres, sanitation salvage with pile and burn would be used on approximately 76 acres, clearcut with pile and burn would be used on approximately 40 acres, roadside salvage would occur on approximately 695 acres, and approximately 514 acres would be undergo a thin, pile, and burn prescription.
Proposed treatments are intended to reduce both the amount and continuity of woody fuels, to remove hazard trees, to harvest beetle-killed or infested trees, and to create a mix of tree ages and species.
The proposed action would retain habitat for sensitive and other species, such as northern goshawks, where needed. The proposed action is also expected to make improvements to visual quality. Treatments in the vicinity of private land would be intended to reduce the threat of wildfire to human life and property.
Access to treatment units, as currently mapped, is anticipated to involve approximately 3.1 miles of new specified road construction, approximately 10.7 miles of temporary road construction, approximately 6.7 miles of additional temporary road use on the existing road prism, and approximately 2.6 miles of road reconstruction. Approximately 3.8 miles of easements through private land would be needed for access to units 4, 20, and 79.
In addition to the proposed action, a no action alternative will be considered. This alternative would continue current management without the actions of this proposal. Because this project is being analyzed via the HFRA, one additional alternative that addresses the purpose and need for the project may be developed in response to issues generated during the scoping process.
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest forest supervisor.
The decision to be made is whether or not to implement vegetation restoration treatments in the Smiths Fork project area, and if so, to what degree and where.
Preliminary issues are the effects of treatments on wildlife habitat, and the effects of insect and disease outbreaks on current forest health.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Forestry Research Advisory Council will meet in Washington, DC, on June 6-7, 2012. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss emerging issues in forestry research.
The meeting will be held June 6-7, 2012 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., on both days.
The meeting will be held at Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street NW., Suite 5500W, Washington, DC. Individuals who wish to speak at the meeting or to propose agenda items must send their names and proposals by May 31, 2012 to Daina Apple, Designated Federal Officer, Forestry Research Advisory Council, USDA Forest Service, Research and Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1120, or fax their names and proposed agenda items to (202) 205-1530.
Daina Apple, Forest Service, Office of the Deputy Chief for Research and Development, (202) 205-1665.
The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture staff and Council members. However, persons who wish to bring forestry research matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to request approval to extend the currently approved information collection for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). There are no planned revisions.
Written comments on this notice must be received by July 6, 2012, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Gidel Mendez, eGovernment Program Leader; Email:
The objectives of EFNEP are to assist limited resource families and youth in acquiring the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and changed behaviors necessary for nutritionally sound diets, and to contribute to their personal development and the improvement of the total family diet and nutritional well-being.
NIFA sponsors an integrated data collection process that is used at the county, state, and federal level. The current data collection system, the Nutrition Education Evaluation and Reporting System (NEERS), captures EFNEP impacts. Its purpose is to gauge if the federal assistance provided has had an impact on the target audience. It also enables EFNEP staff to make programmatic improvements in delivering nutrition education. Further, the data collected provides information for program management decisions and diagnostic assessments of participant needs. Specifications for this system were developed by a committee of representatives from across the United States and are in compliance with Federal standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race and ethnicity and protecting personally identifiable information.
NEERS stores information on: (1) Adult program participants, their family structure, and dietary practices; (2) youth group participants; and (3) staff. NEERS consists of separate software sub-systems for the County and the State levels (State also refers to U.S. Territories). Data is exported electronically to the State-level system. University staff generates State-level reports for State-level stakeholders and to guide program management decisions. They also export State-level data electronically to the Federal office for State and National assessments of the program's impact. The State compiled data is aggregated using statistical software and then is used to create National reports which are made available to the public.
There are no revisions to the currently approved collection.
The evaluation processes of EFNEP remain consistent with the requirements of Congressional legislation and OMB. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62), the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (FAIR) (Pub. L. 105-207), and the Agricultural, Research, Extension and Education Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-185), together with OMB requirements, support the reporting requirements requested in this information collection. One of the five Presidential Management Agenda initiatives, Budget and Performance Integration, builds on GPRA and earlier efforts to identify program goals and performance measures, and link them to the budget process. The FAIR act requires the development and implementation of a system to monitor and evaluate agricultural research and extension activities in order to measure the impact and effectiveness of research, extension, and education programs. AREERA requires a performance evaluation to be conducted to determine whether federally funded agricultural research, extension, and education programs result in public goods that have national or multistate significance.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The USDA Rural Development invites comments on the following information collections for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by July 6, 2012.
Michele Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-8435.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice identifies information collections that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
This collection of information covers the Telecommunications Operating Report, the Broadband Operating Report, and RUS Form 674, “Certificate of Authority to Submit or Grant Access to Data.” The data collected via the Telecommunications Operating Report is collected through the USDA Data Collection System. The data collected via the Broadband Operating Report is collected through the USDA Broadband Collection and Analysis System. The data collected via the Telecommunication and Broadband Operating reports is required by the loan contract and provides Rural Development with vital financial information necessary to ensure the maintenance of the security for the Government's loans, and statistical data to enable the Agency to ensure the provision of quality telecommunications and broadband services as mandated by the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936. The data collected via the operating reports provides financial information to ensure loan security
The data collected via RUS Form 674 provides information to the Agency to allow Rural Development Electric, Telecommunications, and Broadband program Borrowers to file electronic Operating Reports with the Agency using the USDA Data Collection System. RUS Form 674, accompanied by a Board Resolution, identifies the name and USDA eAuthentication ID for a certifier and security administrator who will have access to the USDA Data Collection System for purposes of filing electronic Operating Reports. The information collected on the RUS Form 674 is submitted in hard copy by Borrowers only when revisions are required or, in the case of a first time Borrower, when initially submitting the data.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Under the Code of Federal Regulations in Title 50, Part 665, all vessel owners who fish for deepwater shrimp (
The information collected is used to identify participants in the fishery, document fishing activities and landings, determine the conditions of the stocks, assess the effectiveness of management measures, evaluate the benefits and costs of changes in management measures, and monitor and respond to accidental takes of protected species, including seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals.
Vessel owners must identify their vessels to assist in aerial and at-sea enforcement of fishing regulations.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The 2012 NCT seeks to build on previous Internet data collection research in order to set the stage for the Internet testing cycle for the 2020 Census. The main objective is to test new, dynamic approaches for collecting the number of people in a household, which are not feasible on a paper questionnaire. The anticipated use of the Internet as a primary mode of self-response in the 2020 Census offers the unique opportunity to incorporate conditional residence probes. By making optimal use of electronic data collection for delivery of coverage probes, we can gain a better understanding of who was living in a household on Census Day, thereby greatly reducing (or potentially eliminating) the need for the costly Coverage Followup (CFU) operation. The goal is to optimize the residence rules presentation for the Internet mode and identify validated methods for determining residency. We will utilize a real-time, targeted, probing coverage reinterview conducted by telephone to evaluate the accuracy of within-household coverage by comparing the final household population roster for the Internet Test households to the final reinterview roster for the same households.
As a secondary objective of the 2012 NCT, the Census Bureau aims to study the relative response rates associated with various contact strategies under an Internet Push methodology, in an effort to obtain early response rate indicators for the 2020 Census. The 2012 Internet Test sets the stage for future testing by making important strides in obtaining a select subset of contact strategy options that can be validated in later mid-decade tests. Various contact strategies involving optimizing the Internet push strategy are proposed, such as implementing relatively less expensive reminders both before and after the questionnaire mailing, which builds off recent American Community Survey (ACS) results. Also included is the removal of the advance letter mailing, new motivational wording and varying the timing of the questionnaire mailing to optimize self-response.
Additionally, without impact to sample size, the 2012 NCT offers the opportunity to gain knowledge about how to optimize the presentation of the race and Hispanic origin questions.
Results from the 2010 Alternative Questionnaire Experiment reveal that the combination of the race and Hispanic origin question approach appears to be a promising strategy for collecting these data items. As an additional secondary objective, the Census Bureau plans to continue this research by implementing two versions of a combined race and Hispanic origin question as part of the 2012 NCT. In addition, this data collection will incorporate the use of predictive text to automate and streamline the race and Hispanic origin coding processes. This component allows for near-real-time data processing by increasing the speed of automated coding, thus reducing and/or eliminating back-end processing.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or email (
Cosmetic Essence Innovations, LLC (CEI) has submitted a notification of proposed production activity for their facility located in Holmdel, New Jersey. The CEI facility is located within Site 8 of FTZ 235. The facility is used for the blending and bottling of fragrances. Components and materials sourced from abroad include: plastic bottles; glass bottles; plastic caps and lids; metal caps and lids; plastic collars; sprayers; pumps; and, decorative charms on chains (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.3%).
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt CEI from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, CEI would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to bottles of fragrance (duty-free) for the foreign status inputs noted above. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is June 18, 2012.
A copy of the notification 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 Elizabeth Whiteman at
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of high pressure steel cylinders (steel cylinders) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section, below.
Christopher Siepmann or Yasmin Nair, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7958 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.
The U.S. producer that filed the petition for this investigation is Norris Cylinder Co. (Petitioner). The mandatory respondent to this investigation is Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (BTIC).
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of investigation, is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
The following events have occurred since the
On October 14, 2011, the Government of China (GOC) filed a partial response to the Department's second supplemental questionnaire and requested an extension to complete its supplemental questionnaire response. The Department granted the GOC's request, and on October 18, 2011, the GOC submitted its response to the outstanding questions in the second supplemental questionnaire. On October 28, 2011, the Department issued its third supplemental questionnaire to BTIC and the GOC, and on November 14, 2011, it received responses from both.
On November 18, 2011, interested party Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd. (Jindun) filed a request for a hearing. On November 22, 2011, the Department denied Jindun's request because it was untimely filed, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations.
The Department conducted verification of BTIC's and the GOC's questionnaire responses from December 7 to December 14, 2011, and issued verification reports for BTIC and the GOC on January 3, and January 17, 2012, respectively.
The Department issued a post-preliminary analysis memorandum regarding three programs on March 14, 2012.
BTIC, the GOC, and Jindun submitted case briefs on March 23, 2012, and Petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief on March 28, 2012.
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we set aside a period of time in our
The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of compressed or liquefied gas (“high pressure steel cylinders”). High pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“DOT”)-approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. High pressure steel cylinders covered by these investigations have a water capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT regulations.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China” (April 30, 2012) (hereafter, “Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via IA ACCESS. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum is also accessible on the Web at
In accordance with section 703(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”), we calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. Because only one company
We determine the total net countervailable subsidy rates to be:
As a result of our
We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated deposits or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 which is subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 15, 2011, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the
Alan Ray or Emeka Chukwudebe, 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) 482-5403 or 482-0219, respectively.
Since the
Upon the February 23, 2012, release of the verification reports, we invited interested parties to comment on the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed in the “Antidumping Duty Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination” (“Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we respond to in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at
Based on our analysis of information on the record of this investigation, we have made changes regarding BTIC and the separate rate companies
• Subsequent to the
• We have changed the source used for valuing truck freight.
• We have changed the surrogate financial statements upon which we are relying to calculate financial ratios from Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. to Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing Public Company Limited.
• We have excluded water and all of the other energy FOPs from the build-up for normal value as the Thai Metal Drum Manufacturing Public Company Limited financial statement does not provide sufficient detail for the Department to allocate those factors appropriately.
• We are changing the date of sale for constructed export price (“CEP”) sales to reflect the correct date of sale in the “Targeted Dumping” section of the margin calculation program.
• We are using the revised labor valuation methodology discussed in our March 16, 2012, memorandum.
• In the
The merchandise covered by the scope of the investigation is seamless steel cylinders designed for storage or transport of compressed or liquefied gas (“high pressure steel cylinders”). High pressure steel cylinders are fabricated of chrome alloy steel including, but not limited to, chromium-molybdenum steel or chromium magnesium steel, and have permanently impressed into the steel, either before or after importation, the symbol of a U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“DOT”) approved high pressure steel cylinder manufacturer, as well as an approved DOT type marking of DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T, or DOT-E (followed by a specific exemption number) in accordance with the requirements of sections 178.36 through 178.68 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any subsequent amendments thereof. High pressure steel cylinders covered by the investigation have a water capacity up to 450 liters, and a gas capacity ranging from 8 to 702 cubic feet, regardless of corresponding service pressure levels and regardless of physical dimensions, finish or coatings.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are high pressure steel cylinders manufactured to UN-ISO-9809-1 and 2 specifications and permanently impressed with ISO or UN symbols. Also excluded from the investigation are acetylene cylinders, with or without internal porous mass, and permanently impressed with 8A or 8AL in accordance with DOT regulations.
Merchandise covered by the investigation is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under subheading 7311.00.00.30. Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7311.00.00.60 or 7311.00.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification of the information submitted by BTIC for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by BTIC.
In the
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
No parties commented on the above companies' eligibility for separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we continue to find that these companies demonstrated both a
As in the
The Department received comments from Jindun regarding the Department's
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a NME country are subject to government control, and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Margins” section, below, have overcome that presumption, we are assigning a single weighted-average dumping margin (
In the
In the
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “so as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.”
In the
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the following entities for the POI:
We will disclose the calculations
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of merchandise subject to the investigation entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for the PRC-wide entity and the Separate Rate Companies on or after December 15, 2011. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to collect cash deposits for antidumping duties due on all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of 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 determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an Open Work Session.
This notice sets forth the schedule and agenda for an open work session of the Manufacturing Council (Council). The agenda may change to accommodate Council work. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at
May 10, 2012, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT).
The work session will be held at Freescale Austin Technology and Manufacturing Center, 3501 Ed Bluestein Boulevard, Austin, Texas. All guests are requested to register in advance. This session will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Seating is limited and is not guaranteed. Requests for sign language interpretation, other auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than May 7, 2012, to Jennifer Pilat, the Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202-482-4501,
Jennifer Pilat, the Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email:
No time will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the session. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before or after the session.
Comments may be submitted to Jennifer Pilat at the contact information indicated above. To be considered during the session, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2012, to ensure transmission to the Council prior to the session.
Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the session.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before July 6, 2012.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Katie Davis, (727) 824-5399 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Under the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Operators have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of reduction payment tender of Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon permits.
The National Marine Fisheries Service published regulations implementing a fishing capacity reduction program in the Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon fishery. The program authorizes NMFS to make payments to permit holders who voluntarily relinquish their fishing permits. The Southeast Revitalization Association (SRA) conducted a bid selection process accepting sixty-four bids to remove Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon permits. It then submitted a reduction plan to NMFS to implement the program. NMFS conducted a referendum which approved the reduction loan repayment fees of $13,133,030 which post-reduction harvesters will repay over a 40-year period removing 64 permits. Accordingly, NMFS is preparing to tender reduction payments to the accepted bidders.
The public has until June 6, 2012 to inform NMFS of any holding, owning, or retaining claims that conflict with the representations of bids as presented by the SRA.
Send comments about this notice to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: SE Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Buyback, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (see
Michael A. Sturtevant at (301) 427-8799, fax (301) 713-1306, or
The Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon fishery is a commercial fishery in Alaska state waters and adjacent Federal waters. It encompasses the commercial taking of salmon with purse seine gear, and participation is limited to fishermen designated by the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC).
NMFS published proposed program regulations on May 23, 2011 (76 FR 29707), and final program regulations on October 6, 2011 (76 FR 61986), to implement the reduction program. Subsequently, the Southeast Revitalization Association submitted a capacity reduction plan to NMFS. NMFS approved the plan on February 24, 2012. NMFS published the list of eligible voters on March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12568) and the notice of referendum period on March 29, 2012 (77 FR 19004). Interested persons should review these for further program details.
NMFS conducted a referendum to determine the industry's willingness to repay a fishing capacity reduction loan to purchase the permits identified in the reduction plan. NMFS mailed ballots to 379 permanent permit holders in the fishery designated as S01A by CFEC who were eligible to vote in the referendum. The voting period opened on March 30, 2012, and closed on April 30, 2012. NMFS received 269 timely and valid votes. 215 of the votes approved the fees. This exceeded the majority of permit holders (190) required for industry fee system approval. Therefore, the referendum is deemed successful and permit holders are deemed to have approved the industry fee system. Accordingly, the reduction contracts are in full force and effect and NMFS is now preparing to tender and disburse reduction payments to selected bidders.
NMFS publishes this notice to inform the public before tendering reduction payments to the 64 accepted bidders. Upon receiving notice from CFEC that the permit has been relinquished and is no longer valid, NMFS will tender reduction payments on or about June 6, 2012. When NMFS tenders a reduction payment to a selected bidder, the selected bidder must permanently stop all further fishing represented by each reduction permit the bidder has relinquished. The selected bidder, in accordance with section 5 of the relinquishment contract, must notify all creditors or other parties with security interests in the reduction permit, that they have entered into the relinquishment contract.
This notice provides the public (including creditors or other parties) 30 days from publication of this notice to advise NMFS in writing of any holding, owning, or retaining claims that conflict with the representations of bids as presented by the SRA.
The table below lists the 64 permit holders who will receive reduction payments when NMFS receives confirmation from CFEC that the specified permits have been relinquished.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined under
The meeting will be held May 22-24, 2012, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Seattle Hotel, 1400 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; 206-447-5564.
Mark Holliday, MAFAC Executive Director; (301) 427-8004; email:
As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The complete charter and summaries of prior meetings are located online at
This agenda is subject to change.
The meeting is convened to hear presentations and discuss policies and guidance on the following topics: NMFS budget and legislative issues, aquaculture policy implementation and the Washington State aquaculture initiative, National Standard 1 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, fisheries certification and sustainability, working waterfronts, revisions to MAFAC's
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mark Holliday, MAFAC Executive Director; 301-427-8004 by May 16, 2012.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Council to convene public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a Web based meeting of the ABC Control Rule Working Group.
The webinar meeting will convene on Thursday, May 24, 2012. The webinar will begin at 9 a.m. and is expected end by 12 noon, Eastern time.
The webinar will be accessible via Internet. Please go to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Web site at
Steven Atran, Population Dynamics Statistician; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The ABC Control Rule Working Group will meet to review the results of applying the Ralston et al. (2011) method of calculating ABC when the variances used are computed from GOM stocks, to review discussion on linking Tier 3 ABCs to data collection actions, continue reviews and edits to the ABC control rule, and decide what recommendation to carry forward to the Scientific and Statistical Committee for its June 2012 meeting.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630. Materials will also be available to download from the ABC Control Rule Working Group folder of the Council's FTP site, which is accessible from the Quick Links section of the Council Web site (
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the ABC Control Rule Working Group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Working Group will be
This webinars are accessible to people with disabilities. For assistance with any of our webinars contact Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR Data Scoping, Assessment, and Review Workshops for Caribbean blue tang and queen triggerfish.
The SEDAR assessments of the Caribbean stocks of blue tang and queen triggerfish will consist of a series of workshops: three Data scoping Workshops, an Assessment Workshop, and a Review Workshop. See
The Data Scoping Workshops will take place July 17-19, 2012; the Assessment Workshop will take place October 16-18, 2012; and the Review Workshop will take place February 4-7, 2013. See
A series of Data Scoping Workshops will be held throughout the U.S. Caribbean. The location information for each workshop is included in the table below:
The Assessment Workshop will be held at the Courtyard Miami Coconut Grove, 2649 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, FL 33133; telephone: (800) 321-2211. The Review Workshop will be held at the Hotel El Convento, 100 Cristo Street, Old San Juan, PR 00901; telephone: (181) 723-9036.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366.
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) Data Workshop, (2) Stock Assessment Workshop and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Stock Assessment Workshop is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Consensus Summary documenting Panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
SEDAR 30 Workshop Schedule:
July 17-19, 2012: 3 p.m.-7 p.m.
An assessment data set and associated documentation will be developed during the Data Scoping Workshops. Participants will evaluate available data and select appropriate sources for providing information on life history characteristics, catch statistics, discard estimates, length and age composition, and fishery dependent and fishery independent measures of stock abundance.
October 16-18, 2012: 9 a.m.-8 p.m.
Using datasets provided by the Data Scoping Workshops, participants will develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and stock status criteria, and project future conditions. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters. Participants will prepare a workshop report, compare and contrast various assessment approaches, and determine whether the assessments are adequate for submission to the review panel.
February 4, 2013: 1 p.m.-8 p.m.; February 5-7, 2013: 8 a.m.-8 p.m.
The Review Workshop is an independent peer review of the assessment developed during the Data and Assessment Workshops. Workshop Panelists will review the assessment and document their comments and recommendations in a Consensus Summary.
The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from, or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that the Alaska SeaLife Center (ASLC), Seward, AK, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 15748.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before June 6, 2012.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Joselyd Garcia-Reyes or Tammy Adams, (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 15748 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 15748, issued on May 25, 2011 (76 FR 31942), authorizes the permit holder to capture and harass free-living Weddell seals (
The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include changes to the terms and conditions of the permit related to numbers of animals taken and manner of taking to include: increasing takes for the deployment of instrumentation on weaned pups/juveniles from 20 over the life of the permit to 35 over the life of the permit; increasing the number of takes per animal of weaned pups/juveniles and adult females from 2 to 3; adding nasal, oral, and rectal swab collection (one of each per animal) in weaned pups/juveniles and adult females; adding the use of spray lidocaine or similar agent; adding stable isotope analysis to compare stable isotope values of Weddell seals in the Ross Sea in the early 1900s to today; and adding an influenza A analysis using the requested swab collection to understand the exposure of pathogens to Antarctic marine mammals.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Department of Defense.
Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.
The Defense Science Board will meet in closed session on May 23-24, 2012, at the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Washington, DC. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Board will discuss interim finding and recommendations resulting from ongoing Task Force activities. The Board will also discuss plans for future consideration of scientific and technical aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and policies as they may affect the U.S. national defense posture and homeland security.
May 23-24, 2012.
The Pentagon, Room 3E863, Washington, DC.
Ms. Debra Rose, Executive Officer, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140, via email at
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of closed meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that closed meeting of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.
Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.
However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of closed meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of Public Law 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a closed meeting of the Department of Defense Wage Committee will be held.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
1400 Key Boulevard, Level A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209.
Additional information concerning the meetings may be obtained by writing to the Chairman, Department of Defense Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.
Under the provisions of section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, the Department of Defense has determined that the meetings meet the criteria to close meetings to the public because the matters to be considered are related to internal rules and practices of the Department of Defense and the detailed wage data to be considered were obtained from officials of private establishments with a guarantee that the data will be held in confidence.
However, members of the public who may wish to do so are invited to submit material in writing to the chairman concerning matters believed to be deserving of the Committee's attention.
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2166(e), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.50(a), the Department of Defense gives notice that it is renewing the charter for the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board (hereafter referred to as “the Board”).
The Board shall provide independent advice and recommendations on matters relating to environmental issues facing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Board shall report to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Board shall be composed of not more than ten members who are eminent authorities in the field of natural (e.g. biological, ecological), social (e.g. anthropologist, community planner), and related sciences.
All Board members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and all member appointments require annual renewal by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of Defense may approve the appointments of Board members for three year terms of service; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. This same term of service limitation also applies to any DoD authorized subcommittees.
The Board Membership shall select the Board's Chairperson from the total membership. Board Members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, who are not full-time Federal officers or employees, shall be appointed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and serve as special government employees. Board Members shall, with the exception of travel and per diem for official travel, serve without compensation.
Each Board member is appointed to provide advice on behalf of the government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
The Department, when necessary, and consistent with the Board's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees deemed necessary to support the Board. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the advisory committee's sponsor.
Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the chartered Board, and shall report all their recommendations and advice to the Board for full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the chartered Board; nor can any subcommittee or its members update or report directly to the Department of Defense or any Federal officers or employees.
All subcommittee members shall be appointed in the same manner as the Board members; that is, the Secretary of Defense shall appoint subcommittee members even if the member in question is already a Board member. Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may serve a term of service on the subcommittee of three years; however, no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the subcommittee.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or part-time government employees, shall be appointed to serve as experts and consultants under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 3109, and shall serve as special government employees, whose appointments must be renewed by the Secretary of Defense on an annual basis. With the exception of travel and per diem for official Board related travel, subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), governing Federal statutes and regulations, and governing DoD policies/procedures.
Jim Freeman, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The Board shall meet at the call of the Designated Federal Officer, in consultation with the Board's Chairperson. The estimated number of Board meetings is two per year.
In addition, the Designated Federal Officer is required to be in attendance at all Board and subcommittee meetings for the entire duration of each and every meeting; however, in the absence of the Designated Federal Officer, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer shall attend the entire duration of the Board or subcommittee meeting.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board membership about the Board's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board.
All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board Designated Federal Officer can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—
The Designated Federal Officer, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board. The Designated Federal Officer, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended 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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 6, 2012. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Written comments may be sent to: Eva Auman, GC-63, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Fax: 202-586-0971; or email at:
Eva Auman, GC-63, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585; Fax: 202-586-0971; or email at:
This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5143; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Labor Relations. This information collection was originally titled Legacy Management Labor Relations, but due to transfer of this function to the Office of General Counsel, the title has been shortened to Labor Relations; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: To obtain information from the Department of Energy Management and Operation, and Facilities Management Contractors for contract administration, management oversight and cost control; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 35; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 35; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 193; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.00 annually.
42 U.S.C. 7254, 7256.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR, entitled: “Notification of Chemical Exports—TSCA Section 12(b)” and identified by EPA ICR No. 0795.14 and OMB Control No. 2070-0030, is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2013. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection renewal.
Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2012.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0258, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 707). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
There is a decrease of 825 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects the net effect of a decrease in the estimated number of TSCA section 12(b) notices sent to EPA and a decrease in the number of firms sending notices, based on EPA's recent experience with those submissions. This change is an adjustment.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Announcement of 2012 Program; request for information.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the IRIS 2012 agenda and requesting scientific information on health effects that may result from exposure to the chemical substances on the agenda, including assessments that EPA is starting this year.
While EPA is not expressly soliciting comments on this notice, the Agency will accept information related to the substances included herein. Please submit any information in accordance with the instructions provided below.
Please submit relevant scientific information identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0664, online at
EPA' s process for developing IRIS assessments consists of: (1) A comprehensive search of the current scientific literature, a data call-in, and development of a draft IRIS health assessment; (2) internal EPA-wide review; (3) science consultation on the draft assessment with other Federal agencies and White House offices; (4) independent expert peer review, public review and comment, and public listening session; (5) revision of the assessment to address peer review and public comments; (6) internal EPA-wide review and interagency science discussion of EPA's disposition of peer review and public comments; and (7) clearance and posting of the final assessment on IRIS (
In developing the IRIS agenda for 2012, EPA conducted literature searches for the nominated chemicals and made a determination as to whether a particular chemical had sufficient information to develop at least one toxicity value. EPA offices were asked to indicate which chemicals with sufficient data were priorities for their offices. EPA then considered the other criteria as listed in the
EPA is soliciting public involvement in assessments on the IRIS agenda, including new assessments starting in 2012, 2013, and 2014. While EPA conducts a thorough literature search for each chemical substance, there may be unpublished studies or other primary technical sources that are not available through the open literature. EPA is soliciting scientific information from the public during the information gathering stage for the list of new assessments provided in this notice. Interested persons should provide scientific analyses, studies, and other pertinent scientific information. While EPA is primarily soliciting information on new assessments announced in this notice, the public may submit information on any chemical substance at any time.
This notice provides: (1) A list of assessments completed since the IRIS agenda was last published in October 2010 (75 FR 63827); (2) a list of IRIS assessments in progress; (3) a list of IRIS assessments that will start in 2012, 2013, and 2014; and (4) instructions to the public for submitting scientific information to EPA pertinent to the development of assessments.
The following assessments have been completed since the last IRIS agenda was published in a
The following assessments are underway. The status and planned milestone dates for each assessment can be found on the IRIS Track system, accessible from the IRIS database home page (www.epa.gov/iris). IRIS assessments for all substances listed as in progress in 2012 will be provided on the IRIS Web site at
All health endpoints, cancer and noncancer, due to chronic exposure are being assessed unless otherwise noted. For all endpoints assessed, both qualitative and quantitative assessments are being developed where information is available.
The cancer and noncancer assessments for inorganic arsenic, treated as two separate assessments in previous agendas, will be combined and proceed through the IRIS review process as one assessment. Similarly, the oral and inhalation assessments for chromium VI will be combined and proceed through the IRIS process as one assessment. EPA will update both the noncancer and cancer beryllium assessments, rather than just the cancer assessment.
In January 2010, the IRIS assessment for methanol was released for external peer review and public comment. In June 2010, EPA decided to put the IRIS cancer assessment for methanol on hold pending a review of an underlying study by the Ramazzini Institute (RI). This review was conducted by an independent Pathology Working Group (PWG), jointly sponsored by EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which was established to conduct a review of several RI studies including the methanol study. Based on differences of opinion between the RI and PWG scientists in diagnosing leukemias and lymphomas, EPA has decided not to rely on RI data on leukemias and lymphomas in IRIS assessments. This decision impacts the methanol cancer assessment. EPA will discontinue the peer review of the draft methanol cancer assessment and develop a new draft that does not rely on the RI study. A schedule for the development and review of the cancer assessment will be announced on IRIS track (
EPA is adding 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene (TMB) to the IRIS agenda to complete the set of three TMB isomers. Two other isomers of TMB are already included on the IRIS agenda and undergoing review (1,2,4-TMB and 1,3,5-TMB). 1,2,3-TMB is often found in the environment with 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-TMB. Given this situation, and in response to comments received in the Agency Review and Interagency Science Consultation for 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-TMB, EPA is adding 1,2,3-TMB to the agenda and will conduct assessments of all three isomers at the same time. Because the 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-TMB assessments are already underway, EPA would appreciate notification of any additional literature as soon as possible so that this information can be included in the 1,2,3-TMB assessment prior to public comment and external peer review.
The ethanol assessment is on the IRIS agenda but has not been started. Taking into account the complexity of the ethanol dataset, EPA is considering various approaches to conducting the ethanol assessment. EPA will revisit the priority of the ethanol assessment in FY13.
EPA developed a list of priority chemicals for 2012 from two sources: (1) Chemicals nominated for IRIS assessment by EPA programs, other Federal agencies, and the public; and (2) chemicals already on the IRIS agenda but delayed because of resource limitations. For newly nominated chemicals, EPA first considered whether sufficient data are available to support development of one or more IRIS toxicity values. For chemicals with sufficient data, EPA considered statutory, regulatory, or programmatic need based on the stated priorities of EPA's Program and Regional Offices; potential public health impact of the assessment; interest to other levels of government or the public; and whether a partially completed draft for delayed assessments or an assessment by another organization is available that could serve as a basis for developing an IRIS assessment.
The following chemicals have been selected for inclusion in the 2012 IRIS agenda. The projected start dates included in the table below indicate the U.S. fiscal year in which EPA will start or update literature searches for these chemicals.
EPA is requesting information from the public for consideration in the development of these assessments. Instructions on how to submit information are provided below under How to Submit Information to the Docket.
By FY14, EPA will have started all of the chemicals that were previously on the IRIS agenda, but delayed because of resource limitations, except for the chemicals that are being withdrawn from the agenda as described below under Withdrawn Assessments and the ethanol assessment, described above under Assessments in Progress. Among the new additions to the IRIS agenda, chlorobenzene, mercury, methyl mercury, and vanadium were selected for assessment because they are priorities for multiple EPA Program Offices and Regions and all chemicals have the potential for high impact on public health. While only two EPA Offices indicated that the siloxanes are priorities, D4 and D5 were selected for IRIS assessment because they met other criteria including high potential for impact on public health and widespread exposure and because of the opportunity afforded to perform a cumulative assessment of emerging contaminants.
One of the highest priority substances nominated for assessment was lead. EPA will defer a decision on the development of an IRIS assessment for lead until the end of 2012. EPA anticipates publication of a final Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for lead during the summer of 2012. The ISA offers a comprehensive summary of the health and ecological scientific evidence and also includes information on lead sources, ambient air concentrations, fate and transport, exposure, and toxicokinetics. A draft ISA is available at
In FY2013, before beginning draft development, EPA will conduct a state-of-the-science workshop on manganese. Similarly, in FY2014, EPA will conduct a state-of-the-science workshop on elemental mercury and methyl mercury. These meetings will be open to the public.
The following chemicals are withdrawn from the IRIS agenda:
The alkylates are a distillation fraction of petroleum and are present in gasoline. Common alkylates found in gasoline for which IRIS assessments have not been recently completed include n-heptane, methylcyclohexane, 2-methylbutane, 2-methylpentane, 3-methylpentane, n-octane, 2,3,3-trimethylpentane, 2,3,4-trimethylpentane, and 2,2,5-trimethylhexane. This class of chemicals is withdrawn from the IRIS agenda because there are multiple chemicals in the class, many with limited databases. If individual alkylates with sufficient data to support an IRIS assessment are nominated in the future, the IRIS Program will consider these nominations individually. Bisphenol A is withdrawn because EPA is awaiting further analysis and results from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the NIEHS prior to determining whether Agency action under the Toxic Substances Control Act is required for protection of human health. Refractory ceramic fibers and mirex are withdrawn because they are no longer priorities for EPA.
We continue to request the submission of any scientific information that you would like EPA to consider for any assessment on the IRIS agenda. Instructions for submitting information are provided below.
•
•
•
•
•
It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at
All documents in the docket are listed in the
For information on the IRIS program, contact Karen Hammerstrom, IRIS Program Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (Mail Code: 8601P), Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-347-8642; or email: FRN
For general questions about access to IRIS, or the content of IRIS, please call the IRIS Hotline at 202-566-1676 or send electronic mail inquiries to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of a final decision on a no migration petition reissuance.
Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to the land disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has been granted to Diamond Shamrock for three Class I injection wells located at Sunray, Texas. The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by Diamond Shamrock, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption, into Class I hazardous waste injection wells WDW-102, WDW-192, and WDW-332 at the Sunray, Texas facility until December 31, 2025, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public notice was issued February 27, 2012. The public comment period closed on April 12, 2012. No comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
This action was effective as of April 18, 2012.
Copies of the petition and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source Water Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-8324.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States, Office of Inspector General.
Notice of New Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (hereafter known as “Ex-Im Bank”), Office of Inspector General (hereafter known as “OIG” or “Ex-Im Bank OIG”) is giving notice of a new system of records entitled, “EIB-35-Office of Inspector General Investigative Records.” The information in the new system of records will be used by the Ex-Im Bank OIG to conduct criminal, civil, and administrative investigations, and will contain identifying information about potential subjects, sources, and other individuals related to these investigations.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number EIB-2011-0010 by one of the following methods:
1. Electronically through the eRulemaking Portal at
2.
All comments received before the end of the comment period will be posted on
Alberto Rivera-Fournier, Ex-Im Bank, Office of Inspector General, 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Rm. 976, Washington, DC 20571 or by telephone (202) 565-3908 or facsimile (202) 565-3988.
Ex-Im Bank OIG is establishing a new system
The Ex-Im Bank OIG was statutorily created in 2002 and organized in 2007. Ex-Im Bank OIG is statutorily directed to conduct and supervise investigations relating to programs and operations of Ex-Im Bank and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in such programs and operations. Accordingly, the records in this system are used in the course of investigating individuals and entities suspected of having committed illegal or unethical acts and in conducting related criminal prosecutions, civil proceedings, and administrative actions. The records may contain information about civil, criminal, or administrative wrongdoing, or about fraud, waste, mismanagement, or other violations of law or regulation. This information could be the basis for referrals to appropriate prosecutorial authorities for consideration of criminal or civil prosecution or Ex-Im Bank management for administrative action.
The collection and maintenance of records subject to this system is based on paper records and an electronic records management system, the “Inspector General Information System” (IGIS). IGIS allows the retrieval of records by name or other personal identifier. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of this system of records has been provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to the Congress. Concurrent with this system of records notice, Ex-Im Bank is proposing a rule to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. In addition, Ex-Im Bank OIG is publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment of IGIS.
EIB-35-Office of Inspector General Investigative Records.
The vast majority of the information in the system is Controlled Unclassified Information.
This system of records is located in the Ex-Im Bank OIG, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.
1. Persons who are named individuals in investigations conducted by the Ex-Im Bank OIG.
2. Complainants and subjects of complaints collected through the Ex-Im Bank OIG Hotline or other sources.
3. Other individuals who have been identified as possibly relevant to, or who are contacted as part of an OIG investigation, including witnesses, confidential or non-confidential informants, and members of the general public who are named individuals in connection with investigations conducted by the Ex-Im Bank OIG.
The system contains records related to complaints, and administrative, civil, and criminal investigations. These records include: (a) Letters, memoranda, emails, and other documents citing complaints or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative misconduct. (b) Investigative files which include reports of investigation with related exhibits, statements, affidavits, or records obtained during the investigation, information from subjects, targets, witnesses; material from governmental investigatory or law enforcement organizations (federal, state, local or international) and intelligence information; information of criminal, civil, or administrative referrals and/or results of investigations; public source materials; and reports and associated materials filed with Ex-Im Bank or other government agencies from, for example, exporters, lenders and other financial institutions, brokers, shippers, contractors, employers or other financial service providers.
Personal data in the system may consist of names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, fingerprints, physical identifying data, individual personnel and payroll information, and other evidence and background material existing in any form (i.e., photographs, reports, criminal histories, etc.).
The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 5 U.S.C. 301; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
This system of records is established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to maintain information and document OIG work related to investigations of criminal, civil, or administrative matters.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside Ex-Im Bank OIG as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(A) To an appropriate Federal, State, territorial, tribal, local, or foreign law enforcement agency, licensing entity, or other appropriate authority charged with investigating, enforcing, prosecuting, or implementing a law (criminal, civil, administrative, or regulatory), where Ex-Im Bank OIG becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of such law or where required in response to compulsory legal process.
(B) To Federal intelligence community agencies and other Federal agencies to further the mission of those agencies relating to persons who may pose a risk to homeland security.
(C) To international governmental authorities in accordance with law and formal or informal international agreement;
(D) To any individual or entity when necessary to elicit information that will assist an OIG investigation, inspection, or audit.
(E) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil or criminal discovery or proceedings, litigation, and settlement negotiations.
(F) To Federal, State, local, or foreign government entities or professional licensing authorities responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, or where Ex-Im Bank OIG becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation, or where Ex-Im Bank OIG has received a request for information that is relevant or necessary to the requesting entity's hiring or retention of an employee, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit.
(G) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(H) To the United States Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when: (i) Ex-Im Bank; (ii) any employee of Ex-Im Bank
(I) To third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation.
(J) To a Member of Congress, or staff acting upon the Member's behalf, when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
(K) To an actual or potential party to litigation or the party's authorized representative for the purpose of negotiation or discussion of such matters as settlement, plea bargaining, or in informal discovery proceedings.
(L) To the news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(M) To complainants and/or victims to the extent necessary to provide such persons with information and explanations concerning the progress and/or results of the investigation or case arising from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim.
(N) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the OIG suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the OIG has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the OIG or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the OIG's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(O) To the National Archives and Records Administration or other Federal Government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(P) To appropriate persons engaged in conducting and reviewing internal and external peer reviews of the Ex-Im Bank OIG to ensure adequate internal safeguards and management procedures exist or to ensure that auditing standards applicable to Government audits are applied and followed.
(Q) To the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (“CIGIE”) and other Offices of Inspectors General, as necessary, if the records respond to an audit, investigation, or review which is conducted pursuant to an authorizing law, rule or regulation, and in particular those conducted at the request of the CIGIE pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 3, § 11.
(R) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or an administrative or adjudicative body, when the OIG determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(S) To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity which requires information relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an individual; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance or revocation of a grant or other benefit.
(T) To federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations which require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license or permit.
(U) To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute or treaty.
None.
The records in this system are maintained in a variety of media, including paper, digital media (hard drives and magnetic tapes or discs), and an automated database. The records are maintained in limited access areas during duty hours and in locked offices at all other times.
Paper media are retrieved numerically by investigation number. Electronic media are retrieved numerically by investigation number, by the name or identifying number for a complainant, subject, victim, or witness; by case number; by special agent, or other personal identifier.
All paper and electronic records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Ex-Im Bank facilities are protected from the outside by security personnel. Direct access to investigative records is restricted to authorized staff members of the OIG. Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Manual records are in locked cabinets or in safes and can be accessed by key or combination formula only. Electronic records are protected by computer-logon identifications and password protection.
OIG is in the process of developing a records retention schedule in conjunction with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Closed files relating to a specific investigation are destroyed after ten years. Closed files containing information of an investigative nature but not relating to a specific investigation are destroyed after five years. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to applicable OIG media sanitization practice.
The System Manager is the Inspector General, Ex-Im Bank OIG, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Rm. 976, Washington, DC 20571.
Pursuant to a concurrent notice of proposed rulemaking by Ex-Im Bank, this system of records will be generally exempt from the notice, access, and contest requirements of the Privacy Act. However, the Ex-Im Bank OIG will entertain written requests to the systems manager on a case-by-case basis for notification regarding whether this system of records contains information about an individual. Individuals seeking notification of any record contained in this system of records may submit a request in writing to the System Manager identified above. Individuals requesting notification must comply with the Ex-Im Bank Privacy Act regulations (12 CFR 404.4).
Same as “Notification Procedures'” above.
See “Notification procedures” and “Record access procedures” stated above.
The information in this system of records is obtained from sources including, but not limited to, the individual record subjects; Ex-Im Bank officials and employees; employees of Federal, State, local, and foreign agencies; and other persons and entities; and public source materials.
In general, the exemptions claimed are necessary in order to accomplish the law enforcement function of the OIG, to prevent subjects of investigations from frustrating the investigatory process, to prevent the disclosure of investigative techniques, to fulfill commitments made to protect the confidentiality of sources, to maintain access to sources of information, and to avoid endangering these sources and law enforcement personnel.
A. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and a proposed rulemaking by Ex-Im Bank, this system is proposed to be exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3) and (4); (d)(1) through (4); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f); and (g). The reasons for asserting such exemptions are the following:
(i) Disclosure to the individual named in the record pursuant to subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), or (d)(1) through (4) could seriously impede or compromise the investigation by alerting the target(s), subjecting a potential witness or witnesses to intimidation or improper influence, and leading to destruction of evidence. Disclosure could enable suspects to take action to prevent detection of criminal activities, conceal evidence, or escape prosecution.
(ii) Application of subsection (e)(1) is impractical because the relevance of specific information might be established only after considerable analysis and as the investigation progresses. Effective law enforcement requires the OIG to keep information that may not be relevant to a specific OIG investigation, but which may provide leads for appropriate law enforcement and to establish patterns of activity that might relate to the jurisdiction of the OIG and/or other agencies.
(iii) Application of subsection (e)(2) would be counterproductive to the performance of a criminal investigation because it would alert the individual to the existence of an investigation. In any investigation, it is necessary to obtain evidence from a variety of sources other than the subject of the investigation in order to verify the evidence necessary for successful litigation.
(iv) Application of subsection (e)(3) could discourage the free flow of information in a criminal law enforcement inquiry.
(v) Applications of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) would be counterproductive to the performance of a criminal investigation. To notify an individual at the individual's request of the existence of records in an investigative file pertaining to such individual, or to grant access to an investigative file could interfere with investigative and enforcement proceedings, deprive co-defendants of a right to a fair trial or other impartial adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy of others, disclose the identity or confidential sources, reveal confidential information supplied by these sources and disclose investigative techniques and procedures. Nevertheless, Ex-Im Bank OIG has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access may be appropriate in some cases.
(vi) Although the Office of Inspector General endeavors to maintain accurate records, application of subsection (e)(5) is impractical because maintaining only those records that are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete and that assure fairness in determination is contrary to established investigative techniques. Information that may initially appear inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete may, when collated and analyzed with other available information, become more pertinent as an investigation progresses.
(vii) Application of subsection (e)(8) could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.
(viii) The provisions of subsection (g) do not apply to this system if an exemption otherwise applies.
B. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2) and a proposed rulemaking by Ex-Im Bank, this system is proposed to be exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in those subsections: 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f). These exemptions are claimed for the same reasons as stated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, that is, because the system contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the scope of subsection 552a(j)(2). In addition, the reasons for asserting this exemption are because the disclosure and other requirements of the Privacy Act could substantially compromise the efficacy and integrity of the OIG operations. Disclosure could invade the privacy of other individuals and disclose their identity when they were expressly promised confidentiality. Disclosure could interfere with the integrity of information which would otherwise be subject to privileges (see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)), and which could interfere with other important law enforcement concerns (see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)).
C. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) and a proposed rulemaking by Ex-Im Bank, this system is proposed to be exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f). The reason for asserting this exemption is because the system contains investigatory material compiled for the purpose of determining eligibility or qualifications for federal civilian or contract employment.
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available) and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in
• April 12, 2012.
• Dodd-Frank Implementation, Update.
• Office of Secondary Market Oversight Quarterly Report.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This Meeting Will Be Open to the Public.
Correction and Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of April 26, 2012.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-07: Feinstein for Senate.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2012-16: Angus King for U.S. Senate Campaign and Pierce Atwood LLP.
Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on The Legacy Committee Political Action Committee (A09-22).
Revised Guidebook for Complainants and Respondents on the FEC Enforcement Process.
2012 Legislative Recommendations.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 29, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
2.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 31, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 1, 2012.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2012.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Philip M. Eisenstat (202) 326-2769, FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for May 1, 2012), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 16, 2012. Write AEl Paso Kinder Morgan, File No. 121 0014” on your comment. Your comment B including your name and your state B will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any A[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a
If you file your comment on paper, write AEl Paso Kinder Morgan, File No. 121 0014” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”), subject to its final approval, has accepted for public comment an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (Consent Agreement) with Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“KMI” or “Respondent”) and El Paso Corporation (“El Paso”). The purpose of the proposed Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects that otherwise would likely result from Respondent's acquisition of El Paso. Under the terms of the agreement, Respondent will divest its own Rockies Express (REX), Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, and Trailblazer pipelines, as well as associated processing and storage capacity.
On October 16, 2011, KMI announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement whereby KMI will acquire all of the outstanding shares of El Paso for approximately $38 billion, including the assumption of $17 billion in debt (the “Acquisition”). The Acquisition would combine the nation's largest two natural gas pipeline owners. Separately from any Commission action, El Paso will sell its exploration and production (“E&P”) assets to another company, delivering its midstream components and the proceeds from the E&P sale to KMI.
Without some form of relief, the Acquisition is likely to result in anticompetitive effects in areas in the Rocky Mountains where the combination of the KMI pipelines and the El Paso pipelines threatens to lessen competition substantially in pipeline transportation. The Acquisition is also likely to result in anticompetitive effects in other markets related to pipelines: Gas processing and “no-notice” service. The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies these possible anticompetitive effects by requiring KMI to divest three of its natural gas pipelines and two natural gas processing plants.
KMI is a publicly traded corporation principally engaged in midstream petroleum and natural gas services. KMI is the general partner in the master-limited partnership (“MLP”) Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP) (collectively, “Kinder Morgan”). KMEP owns over 38,000 miles of pipelines and 180 terminals in North America for the transportation and storage of natural gas, refined petroleum products, crude oil, and carbon dioxide.
El Paso is a publically traded corporation principally engaged in natural gas transportation, natural gas gathering and processing, and E&P. El Paso is the general partner in the MLP, El Paso Pipeline Partners (EPPP), into which El Paso placed some of its pipelines. Between El Paso and EPPP, El Paso owns or has interests in over 43,000 miles of natural gas pipelines and gathering systems.
Natural gas pipelines provide the critical connection between natural gas wells, which produce natural gas, and consumers who use natural gas to generate heat and power. Pipeline transportation is the only economical means to transport natural gas between the producers and consumers. Pipelines that cross state lines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). FERC regulates maximum-allowable interstate natural gas pipeline transportation fees, but does not eliminate competition between pipelines. So long as the pipelines comply with their tariffs, they are otherwise free to compete by offering prices below their maximum tariff rate, as well as competing on other terms of service.
The competitive overlaps between Kinder Morgan and El Paso in pipeline transportation are in the Rocky Mountain gas production areas in and around Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. Kinder Morgan and El Paso pipelines dominate the transportation options for five production areas in the Rockies: (1) The Denver/Julesburg/Niobrara Production Basin; (2) the Powder River Production Basin; (3) the Wind River Production Basin; (4) the Western Wyoming Production areas including the Green River Production Basin, the Red Desert Production Basin, and the Washakie Production Basins; and (5) the Piceance Production Basin. Each of these production areas is a relevant geographic market for the transportation of natural gas.
Production areas are connected to more than one pipeline and some pipelines connect to more than one production area. Some pipelines do not connect directly to the basins but interconnect with the pipelines leaving the basins and are necessary to get natural gas from the basins to consuming markets. There are four Kinder Morgan pipelines that serve the basins and interconnections in the Rockies and four El Paso pipelines that serve those same basins and interconnections.
In each of these relevant geographic markets, the pipeline transportation of natural gas is highly concentrated. The Acquisition would significantly increase concentration and eliminate direct competition between the pipelines owned by the two companies, leading to higher prices for pipeline transportation of natural gas to the detriment of producers and consumers of natural gas.
One consumption area in the Rockies is also a relevant geographic market. The Colorado Front Range, which runs from Fort Collins, Colorado in the north to Pueblo, Colorado in the south, contains the major population centers in the Rockies. It overlaps the Denver/Julesburg/Niobrara Production Basin but requires substantial additional natural gas from the other production areas in the Rockies, particularly in the winter. The pipeline transportation of natural gas into this market from the other production areas is highly concentrated. The Acquisition would significantly increase concentration and eliminate direct and potential competition between the pipelines owned by the two companies, leading to higher prices for pipeline transportation of natural gas to
Two other markets, the processing of natural gas and the provision of no-notice pipeline transportation services, would also be impacted by the Acquisition. Both services are related to the pipeline transportation of natural gas.
Natural gas must meet certain standards before an interstate pipeline can accept it. In some areas, natural gas contains heavy hydrocarbons, commonly referred to as natural gas liquids or NGLs. Interstate pipelines have a limit on how much NGLs natural gas can contain and be transported on a pipeline. Gas that contains excessive amounts of NGLs must be treated at a gas processing plant to remove those liquids before it can be transported on interstate pipelines. Currently, the high value of NGLs, relative to the natural gas, would cause the gas to be processed regardless of the specifications of the pipelines. There is no substitute for gas processing to remove the NGLs. The relevant geographic market for processing gas is in the Wind River Production Basin and surrounding areas. For some wells in areas around that basin, only El Paso and Kinder Morgan have processing plants to treat gas before it goes onto interstate pipelines. The Acquisition would eliminate direct competition between the processing plants owned by the two companies, leading to higher prices for gas processing to the detriment of producers of natural gas.
No-notice service is also a relevant market. Interstate pipelines typically require advance notice before a customer transports gas on a pipeline. Some customers' demand for natural gas fluctuates so much that the customers cannot give the required notice to the pipeline and still obtain the natural gas that they need. No-notice service is the term that refers to gas transportation where the customer is not obligated to provide advance notice before shipping gas. Utility customers whose natural gas demand can shift suddenly due to changes in the weather often require no-notice service. No-notice service is provided by pipelines at a premium price. It is not economical for each utility that has need for no-notice service to build sufficient storage to meet all of its peak needs through building its own storage facility. Many utilities are dependent on pipeline companies to provide no-notice service utilizing pipeline owned or third party storage. The relevant geographic market for no-notice service is the Colorado Front Range. Only those pipelines that currently serve this area can offer no-notice service. Currently only El Paso offers no-notice service in that area, but Kinder Morgan is a likely potential entrant into the market. The acquisition by Kinder Morgan of El Paso would eliminate potential competition for no-notice service to the detriment of utility customers.
Under the Proposed Agreement Containing Consent Orders (the “Consent Order”) Kinder Morgan has 180 days from the closing date of its acquisition of El Paso to completely divest three KMI pipelines and two processing plants in the Rockies. The fourth KMI pipeline, the TransColorado, does not raise competitive concerns because its competition with El Paso is limited and there are viable alternatives for transporting natural gas from the San Juan Basin. Accordingly, the TransColorado was not included in the divested assets. These divestitures maintain the competitive status quo ante in the Rockies. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Kinder Morgan may complete its acquisition of El Paso, while the divestiture of pipelines and processing plants already owned by Kinder Morgan will maintain the level of competition that already existed. The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets (discussed in the next section) will protect the competitive status quo until Kinder Morgan successfully finds a buyer for the assets to be divested.
The Consent Order requires Kinder Morgan to provide transitional assistance and support services to the buyer of the divested services. Kinder Morgan must also license any key software and intellectual property to the buyer. The Consent Order allows the buyer to recruit Kinder Morgan employees who work on the divested assets. For a period of two years, Kinder Morgan may not solicit employees that accept employment offers from the buyer to rejoin Kinder Morgan. The Consent Order also limits Kinder Morgan's access to, and use of, confidential business information pertaining to the divestiture assets.
If Kinder Morgan fails to fully divest the assets within the 180-day time period, the Order grants the Commission power to appoint a divestiture trustee to complete the divestiture. The Consent Order also governs the divestiture trustee's duties, privileges, and powers.
The Consent Order requires Kinder Morgan, or the divestiture trustee, if appointed, to file periodic reports detailing efforts to divest the assets and the status of that undertaking. Commission representatives may gain reasonable access to Kinder Morgan's business records related to compliance with the consent agreement. The Consent Order terminates when all requirements of the divestiture order outlined in Paragraphs II and IV of the Consent Order are satisfied.
The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets (“Hold Separate Order”) requires KMI to separate out the divestiture assets from its remaining businesses and assets. Pursuant to the Hold Separate Order, Kinder Morgan will not exercise any control or influence over the divestiture assets while seeking a buyer. The Hold Separate Order seeks to preserve the divestiture assets as viable, competitive, ongoing businesses, and it assures that Kinder Morgan does not access the confidential business information belonging to those businesses.
The Hold Separate Order also empowers the Commission to appoint a hold separate trustee to monitor the divestiture assets and requires the Respondent to appoint a hold separate manager, subject to approval of the hold separate trustee in concurrence with Commission staff, to manage day-to-day operations. The Hold Separate Order outlines the rights, duties, and responsibilities of both the trustee and the manager, including access to business records, hiring necessary consultants and attorneys, and any other thing reasonably necessary to carry out their duties. The hold separate manager reports to the hold separate trustee and not to Kinder Morgan.
The Hold Separate Order prohibits Kinder Morgan from interfering with the hold separate trustee and requires it to indemnify the trustee. The Hold Separate Order requires Kinder Morgan to provide certain support services and financial assistance to the divestiture assets to ensure they operate as they did before the merger.
The hold separate trustee must submit periodic reports to the Commission concerning compliance with the Hold Separate Order. The Commission may appoint a different hold separate trustee if the original trustee fails to carry out his duties. The hold separate manager has authority to hire staff, maintain the assets, continue on-going capital projects, and ensure employees of the divestiture assets are not involved in Kinder Morgan's other businesses.
The Hold Separate Order terminates either (1) one day after the divestiture is completed or (2) three business days after the Commission withdraws acceptance of the consent agreement.
The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. The Commission has also issued its Complaint in this matter. Comments received during this comment period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Agreement or make final the Agreement's proposed Order.
By accepting the proposed Consent Agreement subject to final approval, the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the Complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment on the proposed Order to aid the Commission in its determination of whether it should make final the proposed Order contained in the Agreement. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Order, nor is it intended to modify the terms of the proposed Order in any way.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify in any way the proposed order's terms.
By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Ramirez recused.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, GSA.
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement and the reinstatement of GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims, regarding final payment under construction and building services contract. GSA Form 1142 was inadvertently deleted as part of the rewrite of GSAR regulations on Contract Financing. GSA Contracting Officers have used this form to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process. A notice was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Submit comments on or before: June 6, 2012.
Ms. Dana Munson, General Services Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 357-9652 or email
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0080, Contract Financing Final Payment; (GSAR Part 532 and 552.232-72; GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.232-72 requires construction and building services contractors to submit a release of claims before final payment is made to ensure contractors are paid in accordance with their contract requirements and for work performed. GSA Form 1142, Release of Claims is used to achieve uniformity and consistency in the release of claims process.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
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.
As required by MIPPA, CMS conducted the competition for the Round 1 Rebid in 2009. The Round 1 Rebid contract and prices became effective on January 1, 2011. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) requires the Secretary to recompete contracts not less often than once every 3 years; therefore, CMS is preparing to recompete competitive bidding contracts in the Round 1 Rebid areas.
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 July 6, 2012:
1.
2.
• What is the impact of AFI project participation on short-term outcomes such as savings, asset purchases, and avoidance of material hardship?
• How do specific AFI project design features affect short-term participant outcomes?
While some evaluations suggest that IDAs help low-income families save, rigorous experimental research is limited. Few studies have focused on AFI-funded IDAs, and few have tested alternative design features.
This evaluation—the first experimental evaluation of IDA projects operating under the Assets for Independence Act—will contribute importantly to understanding the effects of IDA project participation on project participants, particularly effects that occur within the first 12 months of participation, and how these short-term effects differ under alternative project designs. The evaluation will be conducted in two sites, with the random assignment of AFI-eligible cases to program and control groups. The evaluation consists of both an impact study and an implementation study. Data collection activities will span a three-year period.
Respondent groups will include: (1) AFI-eligible participants and (2) AFI project administrators and staff members of the participating AFT grantees and their partnering organizations.
Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring David H.M. Phelps for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Mr. Phelps was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(l)(1)(B)), of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food. Mr. Phelps was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. As of March 31, 2012 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Mr. Phelps had not responded. Mr. Phelps's failure to respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this action.
This order is effective May 7, 2012.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.
Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(3)(A)), that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food.
On May 4, 2011, Mr. Phelps was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accepted his plea of guilty and entered judgment against him for the following offenses: One count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the laws of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371; nine counts of false labeling under the Lacey Act, in violation of 16 U.S.C. 3372(d)(2) and 3373(d)(3)(A); two counts of receipt of merchandise imported contrary to law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 545; and one count of misbranding, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a), 333(a)(2), and 343(a)(1) and (b).
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony convictions referenced herein for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food. The factual basis for these convictions is as follows: As stated in the factual resume accompanying the plea agreement referenced above and alleged in the indictment filed against Mr. Phelps, Mr. Phelps was co-owner, vice president, and secretary of CSE Inc., which was used to buy and sell seafood. He was also a co-owner and vice president of RF Inc. RF Inc. also sold seafood, including but not limited to shrimp, oysters, Lake Victoria perch, and types of catfish, commonly called basa, swai, and sutchi.
Beginning on or about January 1, 2004, and continuing through on or about November 8, 2006, Mr. Phelps knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed with his coconspirators to commit offenses against the laws of the United States related to importation of food. This conduct was in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. Specifically, Mr. Phelps received and bought 81,000 pounds of fish of the genus
From on or about February 9, 2005, through on or about June 27, 2005, Mr. Phelps knowingly made and caused to be made a false record, account, and label for, and false identification of fish, that had been and was intended to be
From about March 30, 2005, through April 4, 2005, Mr. Phelps knowingly received, concealed, bought, sold, and facilitated the transportation, concealment, and sale of merchandise after importation, specifically frozen fish fillets of the genus
From approximately March 30, 2005, through approximately June 22, 2005, with intent to defraud and mislead, Mr. Phelps introduced and delivered and caused to be introduced and delivered into interstate commerce food, specifically frozen fish fillets, that was misbranded in that it had been falsely and misleadingly labeled and described as sole and
As a result of his conviction, on February 17, 2012, FDA sent Mr. Phelps a notice by certified mail proposing to debar him for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Mr. Phelps was convicted of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food because he: Conspired to and committed offenses related to the importation of fish into the United States; falsely identified fish; concealed, bought, sold, and facilitated the transportation, concealment, and sale of frozen fish fillets after importation, knowing it to have been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law; and introduced and delivered misbranded fish into interstate commerce. The proposal was also based on a determination, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(3)), that Mr. Phelps should be subject to a 20-year period of debarment. The proposal also offered Mr. Phelps an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Mr. Phelps failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, and under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Mr. David H.M. Phelps has been convicted of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation of an article of food into the United States and that he is subject to a 20-year period of debarment.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Phelps is debarred for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective (see
Any application by Mr. Phelps for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0879 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Karen L. Blyth for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for importation into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that Ms. Blyth was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(l)(1)(B)), of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food. Ms. Blyth was given notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the time frame prescribed by regulation. As of March 23, 2012 (30 days after receipt of the notice), Ms. Blyth had not responded. Ms. Blyth's failure to respond constitutes a waiver of her right to a hearing concerning this action.
This order is effective May 7, 2012.
Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-4640.
Section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(C)) permits FDA to debar an individual from importing an article of food or offering such an article for import into the United States if FDA finds, as required by section 306(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(3)(A)), that the individual has been convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food.
On May 4, 2011, Ms. Blyth was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accepted her plea of
FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony convictions referenced herein for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any food. The factual basis for these convictions is as follows: As stated in the factual resume accompanying the plea agreement referenced above and alleged in the indictment filed against Ms. Blyth, Ms. Blyth was a co-owner, president, and treasurer of CSE Inc., which was used to buy and sell seafood. She was also a co-owner, president, and chief executive officer of RF Inc. from on or about October 1, 2004, through on or about March 2007. RF Inc. also sold seafood, including but not limited to shrimp, oysters, Lake Victoria perch, and types of catfish, commonly called basa, swai, and sutchi.
Beginning on or about January 1, 2004, and continuing through on or about November 8, 2006, Ms. Blyth knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed with her coconspirators to commit offenses against the laws of the United States related to importation of food. This conduct was in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. Specifically, Ms. Blyth received and bought 81,000 pounds of fish of the genus
From on or about February 9, 2005, through on or about June 27, 2005, Ms. Blyth knowingly made and caused to be made a false record, account, and label for, and false identification of fish, that had been and was intended to be transported in interstate and foreign commerce, having a market value greater than $350, and that involved the sale and purchase, the offer of sale and purchase, and the intent to sell and purchase fish, and the importation of fish, in that she created and caused to be created invoices, boxes, and other documents that falsely identified the fish. Specifically, Ms. Blyth falsely identified fish as sole and
From about March 30, 2005, through April 4, 2005, Ms. Blyth knowingly received, concealed, bought, sold, and facilitated the transportation, concealment, and sale of merchandise after importation, specifically frozen fish fillets of the genus
From approximately March 30, 2005, through approximately June 22, 2005, with intent to defraud and mislead, Ms. Blyth introduced and delivered and caused to be introduced and delivered into interstate commerce food, specifically frozen fish fillets, that was misbranded in that it had been falsely and misleadingly labeled and described as sole and
As a result of her conviction, on February 17, 2012, FDA sent Ms. Blyth a notice by certified mail proposing to debar her for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act that Ms. Blyth was convicted of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of an article of food because she: Conspired to and committed offenses related to the importation of fish into the United States; falsely identified fish; concealed, bought, sold, and facilitated the transportation, concealment, and sale of frozen fish fillets after importation, knowing it to have been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law; and introduced and delivered misbranded fish into interstate commerce. The proposal was also based on a determination, after consideration of the factors set forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(3)) that Ms. Blyth should be subject to a 20-year period of debarment. The proposal also offered Ms. Blyth an opportunity to request a hearing, providing her 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised her that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this action. Ms. Blyth failed to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived her opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning her debarment (21 CFR part 12).
Therefore, the Director, Office of Enforcement, Office of Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(b)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, and under authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.35), finds that Ms. Karen L. Blyth has been convicted of 10 felony counts under Federal law for conduct relating to the importation of an article of food into the United States and that she is subject to a 20-year period of debarment.
As a result of the foregoing finding, Ms. Blyth is debarred for a period of 20 years from importing articles of food or offering such articles for import into the United States, effective (see
Any application by Ms. Blyth for termination of debarment under section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)(1)) should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0880 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for PROLIA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6284, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3602.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human biological product PROLIA (denosumab). PROLIA is indicated for treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received patent term restoration applications for PROLIA (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,740,522; 7,097,834; and 7,411,050) from Amgen, Inc., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated April 27, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of PROLIA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for PROLIA is 3,269 days. Of this time, 2,739 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 530 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,365 days; 952 days; and 595 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in cosponsorship with the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), is planning a multiday, educational public workshop entitled “Redefining the ‘C’ in CGMP: Creating, Implementing, and Sustaining a Culture of Compliance.”
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact ISPE (see
Please visit ISPE's Web site to confirm the prevailing registration fees.
To register, please submit a registration form with your name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone, fax number, and email, along with a check or money order payable to “ISPE.” To register via the Internet, go to
The workshop helps fulfill the Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to protect the public health. The workshop will provide those engaged in FDA-regulated drug manufacturing operations with information on a number of topics concerning FDA requirements and expectations related to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP). The joint public workshop offers the opportunity for participants to join FDA representatives and industry experts in face-to-face dialogues. Each year, FDA speakers provide updates on current efforts affecting the development of global regulatory strategies, while industry professionals from some of today's leading pharmaceutical companies present case studies on how they employ strategies to manufacture high quality drugs in their daily processes. Through a series of sessions and meetings, the conference will provide participants with the opportunity to hear directly from FDA experts and representatives of global regulatory authorities on best practices. Topics for discussion include the following: (1) The Business Case For Change; (2) Quality Risk Management—When, What, and How; (3) Sustaining Compliance Consistency Throughout Your Company and Supplier Network; (4) IT Strategies—Cloud Computing, RFID, and Beyond; (5) The Future of Drug Manufacturing. To help ensure the quality of FDA regulated products, the workshop helps to achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115), which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. The workshop also is consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as outreach activities by Government Agencies to small businesses.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), Southwest Region (SWR), Dallas District Office (DALDO), in collaboration with the FDA Medical Device Industry Coalition (FMDIC), is announcing a public workshop entitled “Educational Forum on Medical Device Reporting, Complaint Files, and Recalls, Corrections, and Removals.” The purpose of the public workshop is to provide information about FDA's Medical Device Quality Systems Regulation (QSR) to the regulated industry, particularly small businesses.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact David Arvelo (see
The workshop is being held in response to the interest in the topics discussed from small medical device manufacturers in the Dallas District area. This workshop helps achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393), which include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public. This is also consistent with the purposes of FDA's Regional Small Business Program, which are in part to respond to industry inquiries, develop educational materials, sponsor workshops and conferences to provide firms, particularly small businesses, with firsthand working knowledge of FDA's requirements and compliance policies. This workshop is also consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as an outreach activity by Government agencies to small businesses.
The goal of the workshop is to present information that will enable manufacturers and regulated industry to better comply with the Medical Device QSR. The following topics will be discussed at the workshop: (1) The role of complaint files, (2) medical device reporting, (3) medical device recalls, corrections, and removals, and (4) Corrective and Preventive Actions as They Relate to Complaints.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Scientific Management Review Board.
The NIH Reform Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-482) provides organizational authorities to HHS and NIH officials to: (1) Establish or abolish national research institutes; (2) reorganize the offices within the Office of the Director, NIH including adding, removing, or transferring the functions of such offices or establishing or terminating such offices; and (3) reorganize, divisions, centers, or other administrative units within an NIH national research institute or national center including adding, removing, or transferring the functions of such units, or establishing or terminating such units. The purpose of the Scientific Management Review Board (also referred to as SMRB or Board) is to advise appropriate HHS and NIH officials on the use of these organizational authorities and identify the reasons underlying the recommendations.The meeting will be open to the public through teleconference at the number listed below.
The toll-free number to participate in the teleconference is1-800-779-1545. Indicate to the conference operator that yourParticipant pass code is “NIH.”
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
The draft meeting agenda, meeting materials, dial-in information, and other information about the SMRB, will be available at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the NCI-Frederick Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The premature disclosure of information to be discussed during the meeting would significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in Patent Applications USSN 09/808,149, filed Mar 15, 2001, issued Mar 30, 2004; PCT/US02/07836, filed Mar 14, 2002, designated EP, 02723446,7 and US 10/471,468, issued Feb 9, 2010; USSN 11/739,540, filed Apr 29, 2007; and USSN 12/647,980, filed Dec 28, 2009; entitled “Ocular Therapeutic Agent Delivery Devices and Methods For Making and Using Such Devices”, by Michael R. Robinson
Only written comments and/or application for a license that are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before May 22, 2012 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patent application, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Susan Ano, Ph.D., Branch Chief, IDME, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Email:
The invention relates to a drug delivery system, compositions of, methods of making the drug delivery system, and methods of use as a drug delivery platform. Ocular therapeutics that require repeated intravitreal injections are associated with eye infections, retinal detachment, hemorrhaging, endophthalmitis, and/or cataracts, while topical solutions that require daily application are associated with patient non-compliance. This technology describes a drug delivery platform that can be designed to deliver therapeutics to the eye over months to years. Therefore, this technology can be used to design a therapeutic implant that reduces or eliminates patient non-compliance and/or improve patient safety. The therapeutic implant has the following advantages: (a) It is bioerodible which makes it more noninvasive than repeated intravitreal injections and non-bioerodible implants; (b) has a dual release system that allows the release of two distinct therapeutics or a single therapeutic at different rates; (c) prolongs the therapeutic dose of an agent across the surface of the eye compared to topical solutions; (d) reduces the risk of additional eye damage compared to repeated intravitreal injections; (e) dispenses a therapeutic agent over a long period of time resulting in increase patient compliance and patient health; and (f) is associated with reduced systemic drug side-effects compared to drugs applied systemically. Data are available for rodents, rabbits, dogs, and horses.
The field of use may be limited to “Episcleral Therapeutic Implant for Ophthalmic Diseases”.
The prospective worldwide exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center of Mental Health Services is responsible for the cross-site evaluation of the Cooperative Agreements for State/Community Partnerships to Integrate Services and Supports for Youth and Young Adults 16-25 with Serious Emotional Disturbances (SED) or Serious Mental Illness (SMI), and Their Families (Healthy Transitions Initiative—HTI) that will collect data on program implementation and youth and young adult outcomes in the areas of education, employment, housing, mental health and co-occurring disorders, and involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This cross-site evaluation design includes a process and an outcome evaluation and data will be collected over a 3-year period from 7 grantee sites.
The cross-site evaluation is designed to address the following questions.
1. How closely does implementation match the plan proposed in the grant?
2. What types of deviation from the plan occur?
3. What effect do the deviations have on the planned intervention and performance assessment?
4. What facilitates a successful transition between youth and adult systems?
5. Is there a change from a “youth-guided” model to a “youth and young adult consumer-driven” model?
6. What is the extent of interagency coordination and collaboration?
7. How are state and local-level systems changing in response to the HTI implementation? How does state and local-level policy change affect the implementation of the Initiative?
8. Who provides services (i.e., program staff, agency site)?
9. What services are being provided (i.e., modality, type, intensity, duration)?
10. Is there a viable cultural and linguistic competence plan?
11. What are the individual characteristics of the youth and young adults (i.e., who is being served)?
12. In what settings (i.e., system, community) are they being served?
1. What is the effect of the HTI intervention on the participants?
2. What is the effect of the HTI intervention, compared to a sample of similar young adults not participating in the HTI intervention?
3. What program factors are associated with the observed outcomes?
4. What individual factors are associated with the observed outcomes?
5. How durable are the effects over 24 months?
The process evaluation is designed to assess the fidelity of grantees to implement their proposed program model, and consists of young person focus groups, young person surveys, youth mentor focus groups, transitional program personnel interviews and surveys, and local and state administrator interviews. Process evaluation data will be collected in two waves during FY 2012 and during FY 2014 and, with the exception of the state administrator interviews, participants are not expected to participate more than one time during the 2 waves of data collection.
The outcome evaluation is designed to assess outcomes of youth and young adults in regards to education, employment, housing, mental health and co-occurring disorders, and involvement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The outcome evaluation will utilize both an enhanced and standard data collection and a longitudinal cohort design, and will include a comparative study to assess the effectiveness of HTI relative to a similar sample of young persons who did not receive HTI services. In the standard data collection protocol, outcome data will be collected for each HTI young adult participant, at a minimum of, at baseline at least every 6 months for up to 24 months for as long as the participant remains in HTI services. Enhanced outcome data will be collected on a subsample of young adults at 6 month intervals. The enhanced protocol will continue even after the young person from the subsample has left or has been discharged from HTI services, for up to 24 months. The baseline and follow up outcome instruments include the following key indicators: Demographic information, service use, education, employment/vocational training, housing and living situation, clinical outcomes, behavioral and other health, trauma-related experiences, life skills, parenting skills and supports, involvement with juvenile or criminal justice systems, and social and peer relationships. While participants are enrolled in HTI services, these data collected by the HTI grantees as specified in the RFA.
The HTI Data Center (HTI DC) will be developed for data collection and management. The HTI DC will be a secure Web site that allows uploading of data, real-time access to data by grantees, and production of automated reports for the sites. It is flexible for local use and simplifies the management, monitoring, and reporting of data.
The summary burden reflects the distinct number of respondents, total annual burden, and total hourly cost of the study.
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 8-1099, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857 or email a copy to
The Office of Policy, DHS.
Notice of partially closed federal advisory committee meeting.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) will meet in person and members of the public may participate by conference call on May 24, 2012. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.
The HSAC will meet on Thursday, May 24, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. The portion of the meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. will be closed to the public. The meeting will be open to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Written comments must be submitted and received by May 22, 2012. Comments must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2012-0021 and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
HSAC Staff at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
The HSAC provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of
The HSAC will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The HSAC will receive updates from the U.S. Coast Guard on “Counterterrorism Efforts Around the World” and from the Transportation Security Administration on threats to airport security, receive observations and remarks from DHS senior leadership, and review and deliberate on recommendations from the HSAC Faith-based Security and Communications Advisory Committee.
The HSAC will meet in closed session from 9:00 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. to receive sensitive operational information from senior DHS leadership on threats to our homeland security, border security, U.S. Coast Guard counterterrorism efforts, and an operational overview of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) airport security.
The HSAC will receive briefings on domestic and international threats to the homeland from DHS Intelligence and Analysis and other senior leadership, and a briefing on the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) airport security program that will include lessons learned, and screening techniques associated with airport security. Specifically, there will be material presented regarding the latest viable threats against the United States, and how DHS and other Federal agencies plan to address those threats. Under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), disclosure of that information could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally available to the public, allowing those with interests against the United States to circumvent the law. Additionally, under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), disclosure of these techniques and procedures could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe.
Members will also be provided a briefing from the U.S. Coast Guard on counterterrorism efforts being made around the world. Providing this information to the public would provide terrorists with a road map regarding the Department's plan to counter their actions, and thus, allow them to take different actions to avoid counterterrorism efforts. Under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), disclosure of that information could endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. Additionally, under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), disclosure of this plan could frustrate the successful implementation of measures designed to counter terrorist acts.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4057-DR), dated March 6, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 6, 2012.
Adair County for Public Assistance.
Bath County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4061-DR), dated March 22, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effectiveMarch 31, 2012.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4059-DR), dated March 16, 2012, and related determinations.
Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 16, 2012.
Harrison, Preston, and Taylor Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing information collection.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Declaration of Persons Who Performed Repairs or Alterations. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This information collection was previously published in the
Written comments should be received on or before June 6, 2012.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information.